The Big Religion/God Debate

[Mablak]

"The West achieved dominance in the world when atheism didn't even exist yet" Really? Atheism has always existed.

Not really. Perhaps one or two individuals prior to the 17th century can be considered real atheists, the rest all worshipped a diety or recognized the existence of some form of higher principle.

There were very few open atheists, because atheists used to be persecuted and killed. Surely you don't literally mean 'one or two' atheists, here's a handful of atheists from ancient Greece, and these are just the prominent ones: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhistory/a/AncientGreeceSkepticism.htm. Also, I don't know why you're lumping in 'worshiping a deity' with 'recognizing a higher principle'. Most atheists I know have principles, and good ones at that.

Faith can bring people together. It's a unifying factor. Sure, you still got the flag, and the anthem, and Stephen Colbert... but you no longer share a common spiritual life, a common 'idea' of the world. The christian worldview is far more than just a set of silly rules & beliefs, it erects an entire universe that is both of this world and outside of this world. The word 'church' not only refers to a concrete place of worship, but also to a metaphysical gathering of believers. Through the ceremonies people worldwide come together under Christ.

You need to dispel this notion of Christians having particularly 'common' beliefs; there are literally tens of thousands of different denominations of Christianity, and there's no way to resolve their differences in belief because they're based on different--often times equally plausible--interpretations of the Bible. Regardless, movements such as humanism do involve uniting under common ideas, and focus on morality without relying on any supernatural beings. Secular moral systems are in fact amenable to argument, and because of this, tend to converge on common moral ideas, whereas religious moral systems are not, and tend to diverge.

People may still behave in an atheist society, but the sense of union will be much weaker and people will mostly go about their things whichever way they see fit.   ..   That or search their mystical union & salvation in secular religions like national-socialism, communism or any other utopian movement that ultimately ends up in massmurder.

Not sure what you're arguing here, atheists have weaker bonds between family and friends? Why would you think that? And I would point out that humanism is the biggest secular movement, and isn't showing any signs of inching towards mass murder.

You know exactly what is true and what isn't?
Pretty damn sure at least 20% of your scientific views will be proven wrong in the future.
I don't see why believing in God is harmful per se. Even if it turns out to be a false belief.
Do you have proof that people who are christian suffer more than those who aren't?
I can only speak for myself... but ae, I'm envious of people who believe in God, cause my complete and utter nihilistic views on life & afterlife are anything but a blessing.

I figured you were a Christian, you're not? That 20% (if this were accurate) is why rational belief is tentative belief, I simply believe what makes the most sense for the time being, and if I'm wrong, I revise those beliefs. Religious belief, on the other hand, admits no possibility of revising your beliefs if they happen to be wrong, and is dogmatic. If a god turns out to be a false belief, that would imply many of the average believer's actions were either harmful, or not as helpful as they could have been. If you believe homosexuality is wrong, that masturbation is a sin, that slavery is morally permissible, etc,  because you thought the Bible was the word of a god who knew what was best for us, these beliefs would have been made and acted upon in error, and really would have been harmful. And I didn't say Christians suffer more than atheists.

But the claim in question was HHC's. If we're looking purely at the positives that religion creates for society, there's little evidence that those positives exceed what the non-religious do. Regardless of which religious organization you want to focus on, the fact remains that by any estimations I've seen, the majority of the average religious organization's money goes towards other factors such as operating expenses, rather than direct charity, and thus the original graph I posted is accurate enough.

You are trying to convert an immaterial asset to material means.
You cannot put a price on things like hope, unity & spiritual salvation.

I'm trying to get an objective measure of generosity, yes. It's not perfect, but it's actual evidence. Plenty of atheists have hope and unity (and don't need salvation since we recognize we're not inherently 'sinners'). And if you really 'can't put a price' on these things, i.e. measure them in any way, then that would mean you can't compare the levels of hope and unity between the religious and non-religious, meaning you would have no argument that the religious actually are more hopeful, unified, etc.

[Aerox]

The christian worldview is far more than just a set of silly rules & beliefs, it erects an entire universe that is both of this world and outside of this world. The word 'church' not only refers to a concrete place of worship, but also to a metaphysical gathering of believers. Through the ceremonies people worldwide come together under Christ.

There is nothing the atheists have that can match something like that.
No spiritual home for people, no shared view of the world and beyond.
And that to me seems pretty vital for a healthy society.

People may still behave in an atheist society, but the sense of union will be much weaker and people will mostly go about their things whichever way they see fit.   ..   That or search their mystical union & salvation in secular religions like national-socialism, communism or any other utopian movement that ultimately ends up in massmurder.

HHC, since you're such a revisionist. Tell me: does the power Christianity has to hold people together under a common goal, swimming in faith and oiling the gears in their societies further than patriotism or even humanism could ever reach could have been achievable without the inquisition? (not that I agree with this statement mind, children are humanists before anything else, and they're the true form of freedom, at least before they're contaminated by the priory-established)

I'm genuinely interested how do you get so many people together if not by the raw demonstration of power, and tyranny until it's culture.

I also wished I could believe in god, I've had to put down too many dogs and it sucks. But you know? Being aware of the crap that is death makes one value life for what life is... but I wouldn't dare make that connection you see, about religious people... the same way I can't grasp how someone has the power to claim they're happier because they believe a lie, by the definition of the language we use.

Not to mention labeling someone as being "happier" because he has faith is already a philosophical hole. Surely you can't expect a person to be able to rate his own happiness when he's basing it on the arbitrary scale of Christianity.

I've always seen faith as a shortcut. It's good in practice. But it's only because we lack the individuality and confidence that comes with a proper education. We can educate people to use real faith, faith in ourselves but being that there are big people with big interests, many of whom work for God, it's still an utopia to expect everyone in the world to have access to this sort of education.

But going ahead and claiming Sweden is unhappy because they're atheist is as broad as claiming swedes are unhappy because feminist nazis.

[HHC]

There were very few open atheists, because atheists used to be persecuted and killed. Surely you don't literally mean 'one or two' atheists, here's a handful of atheists from ancient Greece, and these are just the prominent ones: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismhistory/a/AncientGreeceSkepticism.htm.

Of the philosophers on that list, half do not deny the existence of a supreme diety, but merely criticize the outward expressions of popular beliefs.
And the quote of Protagoras is equally troublesome, as he doesn't deny the existence of god(s) but merely states that he cannot know whether they are. It's an agnostic statement, but not an atheist one. And even here... it's the sole line that survives of an entire work called 'concerning the gods'. Without that context it's somewhat hard to figure out what he meant. If he was entirely agnostic.. he could have limited himself to just that single line. I'm pretty sure the rest of his writing are speculations about what really is out there.. and he too then, is likely to end up on the path of searching & finding some supreme principle (see below) that he uses to explain EVERYTHING.

Also, I don't know why you're lumping in 'worshiping a deity' with 'recognizing a higher principle'. Most atheists I know have principles, and good ones at that.

Hmm.. this is not what i meant. I meant it like in the following sentence:
"A law is a universal principle that describes the fundamental nature of something, the universal properties and the relationships between things"
So a higher principle as in some kind of personal or divine (natural) law or entity that is used to explain the workings of the cosmos.

Not sure what you're arguing here, atheists have weaker bonds between family and friends?

I'm talking about bonds with society at large. Or even with people worldwide.

I figured you were a Christian, you're not?

Nope I'm not. I'm an a-theist, but not an anti-theist

[DarkOne]

Faith can bring people together.

So did anti-semitism in Germany in the early 20th century.
Bringing people together is nice and all that, but if you do that for the wrong reason, it's still a bloody bad thing.

The christian worldview is far more than just a set of silly rules & beliefs, it erects an entire universe that is both of this world and outside of this world.

...but then you'd first have to assume that something even exists outside of this world, which is a pretty outrageous claim to make. If I were to make that claim about something that is not described in religious texts, then people would seriously doubt my sanity. Or as Sam Harris put it:

There is nothing the atheists have that can match something like that.
No spiritual home for people, no shared view of the world and beyond.
And that to me seems pretty vital for a healthy society.

Like ropa said: look at Sweden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Historical_homicide_rate_in_Stockholm.svg
This is not proof that atheism is good for a society, but it does go straight against the claim that it's bad for a society.

People may still behave in an atheist society, but the sense of union will be much weaker and people will mostly go about their things whichever way they see fit.   ..   That or search their mystical union & salvation in secular religions like national-socialism, communism or any other utopian movement that ultimately ends up in massmurder.

 
Define mystical union if you please. A lot of atheists also don't believe in spirituality. I don't believe in spirituality - it simply makes no sense to me.
I'm not sure what you mean by salvation either - Usually when I hear/read that word, it's in the context of christian salvation - which is basically god saving people from their punishments which were dealt to them by god in the first place.
National socialism and communism are not religions, they are idiologies. The first is a social ideology (though I think we can all agree it's a morally bankrupt one) and the second one is socio-economical. No religion involved.
Secular religion is a contradiction in terms:

Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saecularis meaning "worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion.

You know exactly what is true and what isn't?
Pretty damn sure at least 20% of your scientific views will be proven wrong in the future.

I don't think anyone makes the claim that they know everything there is to know - except the most religious people, of course: ("God will..." "After you die, you will...".

I don't see why believing in God is harmful per se. Even if it turns out to be a false belief.
Do you have proof that people who are christian suffer more than those who aren't?

I think a bigger problem could be that non-christians suffer from christianity, non-muslims suffer from islam etcetera. I refer you to Marcus Brigstocke's rant I linked to earlier in this thread.

I can only speak for myself... but ae, I'm envious of people who believe in God, cause my complete and utter nihilistic views on life & afterlife are anything but a blessing.

When I look at your posts, I think you're more disappointed in god than that you don't believe in him/her/it/them/whatever. Nihilism is not a logical result of atheism. If there's no god that determines the value of something, then that job is up to you. Nihilism is what happens when you don't do that job.
I know that what I do in my life is going to be forgotten when I die. Maybe not immediately, it could be a lot longer (though I highly doubt it), but I don't really care about being remembered. What matters is what I make of my life now - to me, at least.

You are trying to convert an immaterial asset to material means.
You cannot put a price on things like hope, unity & spiritual salvation.

You assume atheists have no hope or unity. And you assume they think they have spirits and that they need salvation. This quote kind of adds to my idea that you're a christian that's just disappointed with god.

It will never happen. You are overlooking the basic human need for spirituality. Basic questions of life and death & human ethics will always be asked and science will never be able to answer them all. There will always be room (and need) for spirituality and thereby, for religion.

You keep speaking of spirituality, and coupling it with religion. But you say you're not religious, but you do believe in spiritualism. Make up your mind, man!

It would be lost as soon as you put it into a museum.
Religion has to be experienced. It's not primarily used as a theory to explain how the universe works. It's a way of life, an EXPERIENCE. Without experience there is no understanding.

You sound like the "my little TOE" guy. And the guy in the Sam Harris video.

leverages of power over lower classes or over women or whatever, i.e. what they actually are.

How does this in any way apply to the teachings of Christ? or Buddha, or Muhammed, or any great prophet?
These men were noted for questioning or even overthrowing ruling structures & classes and promoting the equality of every man (and to some extent) women.

I think you missed the bits that say "god is the only true god and no god comes before him".
Religions necessarily promote the ruling of a particular structure over the other. For Christianity, it's the church or god. For islam, it's allah and Muhammed. For jews, it's their god and their church. For hinduists, it's Krishna. Etcetera, etcetera.

You can say the religion was perverted or corrupted by emperors & popes, but you can't possibly say these religions are corrupted by nature.

Read the bible or the quran. A lot of it contains murder condoned by god. Stoning, hanging etcetera, it's all there.

There is absolutely nothing in what you say that shows that you consider other systems of belief to be equal to your own. You see them as obsolete, foolish mindsets that hamper any human progress. You only care for them as artifacts of a time long gone.

I have not seen any post from religious people that respect other religions or atheism as equal systems of beliefs. Nothing wrong with that - after all, there's a reason someone follows their belief system. Wally probably thinks his the christian belief system is superior to the islamic belief system. As long as he doesn't go around killing muslims or jews because of that, there's no harm in it. I assume that's how he feels about muslims or jews or hinduists or even atheists the same way.

If you were more open-minded you would see that christianity has played a very healthy role in politics in the West in the last two centuries, and that the real dangers actually came from the mindset of the Enlightenment.

Nope, other way around. Secularism has made people pick and choose which parts of the bible are worth following and which aren't.

There's living according to the bible if you will.

When you consider mankind as ultimately good & consider reason to be the ultimate & only source of progress in this world... you're bound to end up on a very dangerous road. Because if this is true, then anything that doesn't appeal to 'reason' becomes a blockade to human progress. Some like you might resort to discours then to try to persuade the others to join the 'light'-side, but many have also resorted to violence.

You are correct. Atheism doesn't do this, though. It only says one thing about one subject: there is no god. What you describe does describe the crusades pretty accurately, though.

The communist paradise could only be achieved by destroying the 'bourgeios'-class, or basically everyone with a 'bourgeios'-mindset, whether they were aristocrats or farmers.. it didn't matter, they were all seen as roadblocks to human progress... and thus, had to be wiped out.
Likewise, the Third Reich could only be achieved if all people who weren't of the right blood, or the right mind or who suffered from all-too-human illnesses were eradicated.

The church on the other hand has always stuck to the doctrine that mankind is inherently 'broken' since the fall of Adam. That might seem a very pessimist idea, but it has saved the christian world from ever going on the same road as the modern secular religions have.

Christianity is all about that people who follow god are better - only they are worth saving, after all, right?

The christian utopia is not of this world, and cannot be brought about by human beings, only by God. And yes, there have been sects who thought they could bring closer the coming of Christ by acting all repressive, but the mainstream has always embraced the world as it was. Imperfect, but ruled & sanctified by God.
It's no wonder the church was one of the biggest enemies of both communism & nazism and was brutally repressed in both states.

Really? I thought Hitler abused the church to get people to follow him.

Meanwhile, political wise, the church opted for corporatism (cooperation between the working class & the capitalists) and christian-democracy (decentralised government + focus on human rights). It's very fortunate for us that they did, cause without their support for democracy I don't think we'd be living in free societies right now.

Again, you have secularism to thank for that.

[Aerox]

Not sure what you're arguing here, atheists have weaker bonds between family and friends?

I'm talking about bonds with society at large. Or even with people worldwide.

I'm pretty sure atheists tend to go out more than truly religious people. Are you talking about sunday gatherings? Those meetings are amongst christians, and they're usually a majority in the contex of society you talk about, of course they are very involved amongst each other, but that's not much involvement with society when you're only involving one of the many religions a healthy society would have. What other involvement with society at large do they do? Putting the pope on tour? Same thing, it's only christians celebrtaing their own thing and they don't want to hear anything that has anything to do with anything else. They're just loyalizing.

But surely you're aware with terms such as monopoly? Or quotes such as any system concieved without us.... Religion promotes socializing amongst itself to prevail, like any other massive organization. And christianity has ALWAYS been there and that's the reason it's the biggest social organization, it has the most followers, end of.

Atheists have lots of excuses to go out. And there are bigger evils stopping people from socializing, the use of demagogy is astonishing if you imply it can be attributed to the lack of belief in a god when there's things like facebook.

The teology in this thread makes the moors cry

[ANO]

[Aerox]

oh and

please stop with the bullshit about "look at this religious society* and how they're better in bla bla bla than cold hearted viking atheist societies", you can't go on about interpreting society graphs without a the big picture. And the big picture tells you humanity has been following religion for hundreds of years, this affects not only the structures of society and the culttures, but many times morality as a whole and some could argue it's already in our genes. Taking our life style away and assuming we would naturally recover instantly without figuring it out first is rich. Religion has had its influence in democracy, it's the first form of classism, it has shaped societies, countries and continents. Changing from a religious world to an atheist one isn't just turning the god believing switch off, it requires deeper complex changes on all previously mentioned areas so if someone told me we'd struggle, I'd understand.



*i already mentioned "oxyana" didn't I? 100% religious was it?

[darKz]

Kinda relevant.

KHARTOUM, May 15 (Reuters) - A Sudanese court has sentenced a 27-year-old woman to death for converting to Christianity, judicial sources said.

Mariam Yahya Ibrahim had been ordered to abandon her newly adopted Christian faith and return to Islam. She had also been charged with adultery for marrying a Christian man.

Judge Abbas al Khalifa asked Ibrahim whether she would return to Islam. After she said "I am a Christian," the death sentence was handed down, the judicial sources said.

A government spokesman said the ruling could be appealed in a higher court.

"Sudan is committed to all human rights and freedom of faith granted in Sudan by the constitution and law," Foreign Ministry spokesman Abu-Bakr Al-Siddiq said. He added that his ministry trusted the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Outside the court, around 50 people held up signs that read "Freedom of Religion", while some Islamists celebrated the ruling, chanting "God is Greatest".

Students have mounted a series of protests near Khartoum University in recent weeks asking for more freedoms and better social and economic conditions.

Western embassies and Sudanese activists have condemned what they said were human rights abuses and called on the Islamist-led government to respect freedom of faith.

I don't even know what to say. 

[MeTonaTOR]

What about "I'm atheist"?

[HHC]

Define mystical union if you please. A lot of atheists also don't believe in spirituality. I don't believe in spirituality - it simply makes no sense to me.

Spirituality is a very broad concept, it encompasses anything from just thinking about the meaning of life to going all yogi and reach some kind of mental ekstasis. Everyone has a spiritual dimension to them.

I'm not sure what you mean by salvation either - Usually when I hear/read that word, it's in the context of christian salvation - which is basically god saving people from their punishments which were dealt to them by god in the first place.

Being alive is in many ways a punishment. We all suffer, and not often in not so pretty ways.
It's only natural for people to long for a means to make the suffering end. That's salvation.
You can read the fall of Adam as a story of God's wrath, but it has many more dimensions. For example, you can read it also as a mythical parallel to 'growing up'. A child has no individuality in its early years, it's only at a later stage that it manages to seperate itself from its environment. This process accumulates in the years of puberty when youngsters start to rebel against their parents and form an identity of their own.. this process is accompanied by the full development of reason, of ratio. In the bible, when Adam & Eve break with the rules laid down upon them by their Father, and eat the forbidden fruit (of the tree of knowledge) they also become aware of their nudity, their sexuality. And from then on the 'mystical' union they had formed with their Father exists no longer and they are made to room the world on their own. (Yet still, under the watchful eye of their Father).
As such, the 'punishment' is brought about by their own behaviour, by their own need to seperate themselves from their Father. The twist in the plot is also a necessary one. The expulsion out of paradise must be completed in order for the individual to mature. The original sin + death & suffering is the price you pay for growing up.

National socialism and communism are not religions, they are idiologies. The first is a social ideology (though I think we can all agree it's a morally bankrupt one) and the second one is socio-economical. No religion involved.

Many authors have pointed out the similarities between these ideologies and religion.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14690760500317727?journalCode=ftmp20#.U4kMzihLREo
http://books.google.nl/books?id=h_s3y7U4argC&lpg=PA1&ots=eCqmjBvX8T&dq=communism%20nazism%20religions&lr&hl=nl&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=communism%20nazism%20religions&f=false
There's the ceremonies, the worship, the unquestionable dogma's, the prophets (Marx, Engels), the saints, the messiahs (Hitler), the expectation of a Ragnarok and the establishment of paradise. The symbols, the myths, the demons.. It's all there. The only thing that's missing is a real God, that's why they aren't full religions, but 'secular religions'.

When I look at your posts, I think you're more disappointed in god than that you don't believe in him/her/it/them/whatever. Nihilism is not a logical result of atheism. If there's no god that determines the value of something, then that job is up to you. Nihilism is what happens when you don't do that job.

I do not believe in God, nor gods, nor an afterlife, nor in anything else that can give life meaning. For me, there's just the coldhearted laws of nature. We are born as a result of a biological process, the sole purpose we have as 'creatures' is to reproduce for the sake of the species as a whole. We are dispensable once we have bred the next generation.
The only value we have as individuals in that process is that we help the species survive. But what's the point in having the species survive? Does it get a medal as soon as it reaches its 1.000.000 birthday? And if so, do I still get to profit from that when I'm long gone and reduced to ashes?

I could make up some random meaning of life, but I'd just be lying to myself.

I think you missed the bits that say "god is the only true god and no god comes before him".
Religions necessarily promote the ruling of a particular structure over the other. For Christianity, it's the church or god. For islam, it's allah and Muhammed. For jews, it's their god and their church. For hinduists, it's Krishna. Etcetera, etcetera.

None of these prophets ever wanted to hold all power in society, au contraire, they preferred to leave society behind and establish a different kind of society (a spiritual church). In this new spiritual society people were equal, regardless of sex or class or social status.
None of them raised institutions that opressed people. That's something of a later date, when the whole of society embraced the new religion and institutions had to be erected to keep the church from falling into complete and utter chaos.

I have not seen any post from religious people that respect other religions or atheism as equal systems of beliefs. Nothing wrong with that - after all, there's a reason someone follows their belief system.

I'm not sure why you type 'religious people' and not 'people' in general.

Really? I thought Hitler abused the church to get people to follow him.

Hitler wanted the complete destruction of the church. But at that time, it was an unachievable goal cause the majority of the german people were still very religious. Hence he settled for a momentary armistice and sealed a deal with the papacy to silence any big criticism in germany, while silently working towards the goal of abolishing the religion altogether. For the papacy it was a doable deal cause the church in germany had to deal with severe oppression and this deal seemed the only way to save what was left and prevent any real harm done to devout believers.

[darKz]

What about "I'm atheist"?

More like "this is exactly why I'm an atheist".

[TheWalrus]

Kinda relevant.

KHARTOUM, May 15 (Reuters) - A Sudanese court has sentenced a 27-year-old woman to death for converting to Christianity, judicial sources said.

Mariam Yahya Ibrahim had been ordered to abandon her newly adopted Christian faith and return to Islam. She had also been charged with adultery for marrying a Christian man.

Judge Abbas al Khalifa asked Ibrahim whether she would return to Islam. After she said "I am a Christian," the death sentence was handed down, the judicial sources said.

A government spokesman said the ruling could be appealed in a higher court.

"Sudan is committed to all human rights and freedom of faith granted in Sudan by the constitution and law," Foreign Ministry spokesman Abu-Bakr Al-Siddiq said. He added that his ministry trusted the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Outside the court, around 50 people held up signs that read "Freedom of Religion", while some Islamists celebrated the ruling, chanting "God is Greatest".

Students have mounted a series of protests near Khartoum University in recent weeks asking for more freedoms and better social and economic conditions.

Western embassies and Sudanese activists have condemned what they said were human rights abuses and called on the Islamist-led government to respect freedom of faith.

I don't even know what to say. 

Strikes me as more political than anything.  You could replace "God" and "religion" with "alcohol" in the article and it still demonstrates why the totalitarian government there controls almost every facet of everyday life in a way detrimental to the people.  A good title for the article would be, People getting sentenced to death for some dumbass reason again in this ass-backward country.

These types of religious people make bad examples for this discourse, as do the idiot athiests like the Mussolinis, Stalins, and Hitlers of this world.

Speaking of those fellows, I'm a bit glad the allies won the war.  Unrelated, of course. 

[Mablak]

Strikes me as more political than anything.  You could replace "God" and "religion" with "alcohol" in the article and it still demonstrates why the totalitarian government there controls almost every facet of everyday life in a way detrimental to the people.  A good title for the article would be, People getting sentenced to death for some dumbass reason again in this ass-backward country.

These types of religious people make bad examples for this discourse, as do the idiot athiests like the Mussolinis, Stalins, and Hitlers of this world.

Well, apostasy carries the death sentence in Islam according to the Quran and the Hadith; this is at least the majority interpretation: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm. These kinds of murders really are motivated by belief in specific Islamic doctrine, which of course is not mutually exclusive with them also being politically or culturally motivated. But religion is a key component. Also, Hitler wasn't an atheist. And if you're suggesting Stalin's genocides had anything to do with his atheism, I'd say linking his actions causally with a lack of belief in god would have as much evidence going for it as linking his actions with a lack of belief in UFOs, or any of the other billion things he presumably didn't believe in. Atheism is, after all, just a lack of belief in god, and not a worldview.

[TheWalrus]

Strikes me as more political than anything.  You could replace "God" and "religion" with "alcohol" in the article and it still demonstrates why the totalitarian government there controls almost every facet of everyday life in a way detrimental to the people.  A good title for the article would be, People getting sentenced to death for some dumbass reason again in this ass-backward country.

These types of religious people make bad examples for this discourse, as do the idiot athiests like the Mussolinis, Stalins, and Hitlers of this world.

Well, apostasy carries the death sentence in Islam according to the Quran and the Hadith; this is at least the majority interpretation: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm. These kinds of murders really are motivated by belief in specific Islamic doctrine, which of course is not mutually exclusive with them also being politically or culturally motivated. But religion is a key component. Also, Hitler wasn't an atheist. And if you're suggesting Stalin's genocides had anything to do with his atheism, I'd say linking his actions causally with a lack of belief in god would have as much evidence going for it as linking his actions with a lack of belief in UFOs, or any of the other billion things he presumably didn't believe in. Atheism is, after all, just a lack of belief in god, and not a worldview.

Yeah, you didn't read the part where I said Adolph, Benito, and Joseph made bad examples for this discussion because you immediately charged in and asked if I was suggesting a correlation, when clearly I went out of my way to say I wasn't suggesting anything. 

Since atheism is a world view, as you so succinctly put it, it can never be held accountable as paramount in a person's behaviors.  It is like criticizing vacuum in space for a lack of density.  How can an atheist be held accountable for anything, since they so clearly believe in nothing?  At least spiritual people have some accountability.  Atheists need not take responsibility for their actions neither point the finger inward as a result of their actions.   

The main criticism of your defense of atheism is you want to have it both ways, Mablak.  You would have me believe that in one aspect, atheism is a greater promoter of the common good.  But when provided with arguments to the contrary, atheism as a concept dissolves into nothingness, and ceases to be quantified.

You see my issue here.  Your blanket defense is impervious to argument, and it has nothing to do with the sterling virtues of an atheistic life.  It's rather hard to take seriously, as my arguments are hard for you to take seriously.  That is why I've ceased responding to many of the posts here, not because anything has been proven, but rather an insurmountable impasse has been reached. 

In retrospect, it seems rather absurd that we have even mounted the discussion, atheism is clearly not the philosophical equal to religion, not because it is any less valid as a school of thought, but rather one is something, and the other is a lack of something.

[Mablak]

Yeah, you didn't read the part where I said Adolph, Benito, and Joseph made bad examples for this discussion because you immediately charged in and asked if I was suggesting a correlation, when clearly I went out of my way to say I wasn't suggesting anything.

I know you were saying we shouldn't judge a group by its worst members, and of course I agree. But I got the feeling that you do think Stalin was actually motivated by atheism, if not, never mind. But there are a few things worth clarifying.

Since atheism is a world view, as you so succinctly put it, it can never be held accountable as paramount in a person's behaviors.  It is like criticizing vacuum in space for a lack of density.  How can an atheist be held accountable for anything, since they so clearly believe in nothing?  At least spiritual people have some accountability.  Atheists need not take responsibility for their actions neither point the finger inward as a result of their actions.

Is 'not' a world view, I think you mean. You just jumped from 'atheism' to 'atheist'; atheists are just as accountable as anyone else, but 'atheism' on its own isn't the source of that accountability for any particular action, since it means nothing more than a lack of belief in gods. Hard atheism on the other hand, would be an actual belief that 'no gods exist', or particular gods don't exist, and since it's an actual belief, could be argued to be a motivation for a person's actions in some situation. Atheism doesn't mean a belief in nothing, again, just a lack of belief in gods.

The main criticism of your defense of atheism is you want to have it both ways, Mablak.  You would have me believe that in one aspect, atheism is a greater promoter of the common good.  But when provided with arguments to the contrary, atheism as a concept dissolves into nothingness, and ceases to be quantified.

I never suggested atheism was a promoter of the common good. Since the word doesn't refer to any particular belief, this statement wouldn't make sense. I suggested atheists can promote common good just as well as the religious, I didn't imply their reasons for doing so are based on atheism. Utilitarianism, skepticism, tolerance, etc, are the kinds of beliefs/attitudes that actually produce the good outcomes I'm talkin' about.

In retrospect, it seems rather absurd that we have even mounted the discussion, atheism is clearly not the philosophical equal to religion, not because it is any less valid as a school of thought, but rather one is something, and the other is a lack of something.

Atheism is explicitly not a school of thought, world view, or ideology. Just a single stance on a single issue. You're thinking that atheists are 'just atheists', and nothing else, but we have full belief systems. The actual world views atheists have are often based on humanism, skepticism, methodological naturalism, and so on, though no particular belief is required or entailed by atheism on its own.