In my other blog entry God and Logic, I defended the concept of God and religion using logic (go figure). I did this to invalidate the "God doesn't exist because no one has proved his/her/its existence" argument. Here, I plan to debunk the "God is the ultimate evil in the world" argument.
The Crusades, Jihad, The Ku Klux Klan, Nazism: true many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. But what about the atrocities that have been committed in the name of atheism?
What about the condition of China where, until recently, it was illegal to worship and now religious worship must be registered with the authorities? In China, people are put to death for offenses such as pimping, tax evasion (however, taxes have become voluntary), drug trafficking, terrorism and separatism (which basically equates to worshipping Islam in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region). In fact, China is responsible for 80% of all executions (Amnesty International) The Chinese routinely jail and torture Tibetan Buddhists and Falun Gong practitioners for distributing materials about their religions, labelling them as 'subversives.' The Chinese are famous for their labor camps, full of people sentenced to "reeducation through labor" for their 'crimes.' The Chinese force abortions on women sentenced to death (because it is illegal to put a pregnant woman to death).
What about the former Soviet Union, where religion was outlawed, as in the practice of Marxist theory. Jehovah's Witnesses, Truly Orthodox Christians, Innokentians, and Adventists-Reformists among others, were disallowed from practicing and often sent to labor camps (called GULAG) or exiled. They were forbidden from serving in the Soviet Army or being members of Soviet Youth Groups. Jehovah's Witnesses, in particular, were relocated to the Baltic States, Moldova, and the western parts of Ukraine and Belarus. Throughout the history of the Soviet Union, several ethnic groups were exiled to Central Asia, Kazakhstan, the Far East and the infamous Siberia.
Truly, lack of religion doesn't help to pacify the world.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
good for you. i like this blog alot
I have heard these arguments too many times and I have come to see people don't understand that someone does not kill for atheism because he claims to be an atheist, and because it is religious people who get the brunt of the oppression.
Many so-called atheist dictators (a few of whom are exposed to be closet believers, Hitler being most notorious) are well aware that dictatorial communism and complete devotion exists only when their subjects are free from religion and devoted only to the state. It is dictatorial communism that calls for atheism and oppression.. atheism is not the cause for the oppression, but a necessary symptom of a dictatorial mess.
It must be noted that none of the secular European states are killing people of other faiths today, and it is because none of these secular states are dictatorships, but democracies. On the contrary, secular European states open their borders to many muslims, even though many believe it will be to Europe's detriment.
This demonstrates clearly the oppression is a result of dictatorial communism and not atheism. It was until secular administrations came to power in the West that civil liberties for many oppressed groups were achieved, and it is with a pathological devotion to religion that causes many countries, few in the West, to keep equality from many people.
Many of the Bible based major religions and even the atheist are abundant in humanitarian goodness.Up close and personal Jehovah's Witnesses can be wolves in sheep's clothing.
Jehovah's Witnesses door to door recruitment is by their own admission an ineffective tactic. They have lost membership in all countries with major internet access because their false doctrines and harmful practices are exposed on the modern information superhighway.
There is good and valid reasons why there is such an outrage against the Watchtower for misleading millions of followers.Many have invested everything in the apocalyptic promises of the Jehovah's Witnesses and have died broken and beaten.
---
Danny Haszard, life-long Jehovah's Witness www.dannyhaszard.com
Any time where a certain idea is imposed by force is sad that goes for everybody.
i think pimps should be executed too.
Logic has little to do with the commentary under the heading of IN DEFENSE OF GOD. In point of fact, an all-powerful being can only claim goodness if goodness is evidenced by __action__on behalf of those weaker and lesser than Himself.
Atrocities are preventable when a super-agency (claimed for God) is involved. When atrocities happen (as the have throughout history) it can only shine a bright light on the absence of a super-agency. Any God who would tolerate the domination of evil on children and innocent victims for even the fleeting moment is no God at all. It is the very fact of evil which is the largest obstacle of LOGIC destroying the mythos of a super being such as God.
In further illustration of the illogic of specifically Christian reliance on a one, true Holy Book is the innumerable conflicts among Christians each reading the same book and coming to antagnostic conclusions as to purpose and intent of even the simplest scriptures. The proliferation of denominations all claiming the same God and Holy Book at odds with each other is proof positive that only cognitive dissonance can explain the continued self-assurance of these people. There is no LOGIC when it comes to either God or religion.
Faith is self-assurance in defiance of any proof to the contrary. This is remarkably similar to gullibility and hubris.
The logical conclusion is at odds with the article titled IN DEFENSE OF GOD. Two thousand plus years of Christianity has produced no progress in mankind's condition upon the Earth. The only true progress has been that provided by technology. Mysticism of any sort, be it religious or otherwise, is merely the reliance on wishful-thinking in the hands of practitioners claiming a channel to a superior force. Priests, rabbis, gurus and ministers can claim whatever connection to transcendance they so choose, but, the condition of ignorance and vulnerability displayed in their gullible followers belies their deceptive humbuggery.
If there were a God and that being was all-powerful and benign, He/She/It would not need to rely on weak, sinful and imperfect dying humans to "defend" this deity from charges of non-existence in the first place. It would be like the air itself: super-abundantly obvious every minute of the day. Instead, we have mere outrageous wishful thinking parading as evidence in a world awash with irrationality.
The human condition only improves when we, each of us, do something to make life better in the real world. Belief in a paradise or heaven to come only destroys incentive to make the world transformed in there here and now. Idle minds waiting on heavenly rescue aren't doing much to build a beautiful tomorrow with the work of their own hands. The very idea of God is an excuse to do nothing but stand at the bus stop and pray for a bus to take you somewhere better.
Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are constantly predicting (from the bible) that Armageddon is coming on a certain date. The date comes and goes and they aren't even embarassed! Being wrong doesn't matter because their irrational minds are unplugged from reality. They are kept busy as volunteer door-to-door salesmen with books and magazines filled with nonsense purporting to be direct information from God!
Other groups, sects and cults each share assurance that they and they only have a direct hotline to God's throne. The reality is, each believer is self-deceived first and then merely a sock-puppet of some greedy power-monger selling a fanciful story in aid of personal enrichment.
Wake up and smell the coffee!
Terry Walstrom
I think you missed the point of this entry. I used logical proofs in my past blog about God. In this blog I said that I wasn't going to be using logic, but instead argument.
--Mike
I find this interesting I mean that in most religions good works are requested of the followerer.... I think that saying the idea of God is an excuse to sit idly by is a cop out...
Where is the logic in someone that thinks he (or she) is more intelligent than the Creator. What you described as faith is credulity. For the true definition of faith, try READING what the Creator has provided through imperfect though faithful men. It's recorded at Heb. 11:1. Here's a truth that most men fail to consider; "...whereas you do not know what your life will be tomorrow. For you are a mist appearing for a little while and then disappearing." (James 4:14) Can our finite mind comprehend someone that is alive forever, is all powerful, and will fulfill his promises, when he has purposed?
Just because atrocities happen, doesn't mean there's a lack of a "super-agency". You're thinking of the kind and loving God that only looks sad when we do stupid things and holds our hand through life. I was taught as a youngster that the super-agency was quite an angry and a jealous God, and that he was also a kind and loving God. I was also taught that he doesn't want robotic drones who worship him, he wants people to worship him by choice.
I have my reasons for believing otherwise now, but don't discount the validity of God just because of simple tragedies. That's entirely the fault of the human condition, not the "super-agency."
-------
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/whitejabberwocky
I have read some of Danny's comments on other sites. Here is a bitter mans anger being improperly vented. He himself has become a messiah to those who claim to be JW. It has become his goal to eradicate this group and expose them for what they really are. And yet in the above post, he state he is a life-long JW. From your own words one would have to conclude you are not a JW by any means. You are no longer a member of that faith. No faith is perfect, and you will find fault with every group. Show me a group that has not mislead, misinformed or even sadly had some members that abused a child or a member. Danny you need to let God handle the situation. You are not a personal avenging angel for the Lord. Let your anger go.
Danny Haszard Bangor Maine counter-cult educator born 3rd generation Jehovah's Witness now turned whistle-blower on his former faith and the corrupt the Watchtower corporation.
Danny,
How about posting all your past mistakes,errors, police records. Just give us your drivers license and social security number. I doubt your qualifications as a whistle blower. You probably get all your information from the internet. And we all know that the internet is 100 accurate with no mistakes. No offense, but you need serious help with your anger toward this faith.
The Jehovah's Witnesses followers of the Watchtower cult bear responsibility for giving Christianity a bad reproach, their false prophets have a 100% fail rate.The Watchtower is run by cult psychopaths who have the gall to intrude door to door with their false "Jesus had his second coming in 1914" gospel of gobbledygook.
They are a menace to society and an abomination to the God who's name they blaspheme.Jesus said his followers would be the "salt of the earth" the abusive Jehovah's Witnesses are the scum of the earth.Learn the truth about them http://www.freeminds.org
Wow,
Another expert on JW's. Don't you folks have better things to do? You claim to be experts on these folks, but from what I have read and heard, most of your information is second hand. Bitter,"disfellowshiped" and hardened souls. You claim they have a 100% failure rate. You also claim they are the "scum" of the earth. How come they are the only religion that did not get involved in WWI,WWII etc... In the second WWII there were more Catholics fighting against the USA, than were fighting for it. So are Catholics scum too? How about Baptists? Mormans? I think you get the point. You must be a good friend of Danny Haszard. Your sites are damaging mentally and emotionally too. You spew outright hate and anger. You claim to know the real truth. You are a destructive site. You need to look at yourself before you criticize others.
Here, I plan to debunk the "God is the ultimate evil in the world" argument. ... The Crusades, Jihad, The Ku Klux Klan, Nazism: true many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. But what about the atrocities that have been committed in the name of atheism? ... Let's see what the Bible has to say about this: Romans 13:1-2 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. According to Paul, your argument fails. God put all of those despots into positions of power.
Shame that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world and Paul's whiney letter not the only religious doctrine.
--Mike
Shame that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world and Paul's whiney letter not the only religious doctrine.
The multiplicity of religions and descriptions of God certainly doesn't help the argument for His existence. It's almost as if people who claim to know that God exists and what he wants us to do are making **** up.
Hey I wonder, when Jesus referred to his disciples as "the salt of the Earth", maybe he was referring to Lot's wife.
Wow, I do not know what to say! Why can't we accept God for who HE is, if we want to and stop trying to prove that He is a sham? No one tries to prove that buddha or Mohammad are a sham.
May the Force be with you...and God bless.
No one tries to prove that buddha or Mohammad are a sham.
Neither the buddha nor Mohammed claimed to have supernatural powers. Many people have tried to prove that other gods (Woden, Zeus, etc) were shams. Why should Yahweh get a free pass?
The battle between atheism and theism humors me greatly. Atheism is just a ignorant as theism. You make judgements on our limited evidence of god and you still feel the necessity to choose one side over another. The fact that we have to have an answer to such questions must be a human instinct. The truth is we don't know for sure anything. The only thing we do know is that people think that god is telling them to certain things. But, then again, there are people who have claimed to be obducted by aliens. Why do we need to feel that god exists?
On another topic...
China doesn't prosecute religion because they're atheist. They do it because religion can be dangerous to the state. Same for Russia. Atheism has no doctrine or guidelines, so what people choose to do as an atheist is their choice, no one elses.
Mike:
I’ve read your “God and Logic” thread as well and found it lacking in that it attempts to offer an undefined “God” of the gaps assertion by using the “for every effect there is a cause”, therefore "God", non-answer.
The problem is that you then immediately dismiss that assertion for the very undefined “God” you postulate. Shouldn't your vague and unspecified "God" have a cause?
You also simply forgot to define which “God” you imply is more logical to believe in.
"Faith" in such a vague entity provides no logical method to gain knowledge or real answers about our life, the universe and everything.
Your post ends up being a very weak argument and fails the test of logic, in my view.
Now, on to this current argument you posit "In defense of God" (again, readers should note that you fail to specify which God).
Let me point out what should be glaringly obvious to anyone reading your initial assertion regarding the history of oppressive governments:
"Atheism" is simply the recognition that there is no credible evidence for the existence of Gods; no matter which religious adherent asserts is the "right one".
Atheism *makes no other claim* regarding behavior, political ideology, strength, moral value or loving compassion one may possess and express in life.
You then go on to decribe repressive ideologies such as communism and marxism as if they *are* atheism.
Plainly, they are not.
Lack of religion doesn't help to pacify the world, because that is not a tenet of atheism.
I am a humanist, a naturalist and an atheist. These labels describe different aspects of my worldview.
In closing, it should be noted that "secular" governments removed from theocratic ideologies are better at helping to pacify the world.
Secularism should be what is defended.
Steve
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. FAITH requires no proof. FAITH is an opinion. The fact that a TRUE BELIEVER takes comfort in having hope without proof says alot about the damage done to their intellectual mechanism.
It makes believers very uncomfortable when somebody disagrees with them. Why? Because their opinion is really the only basis for their confidence in a world view founded on wishful thinking. If it really were a matter of "Faith" they wouldn't constantly resort to the need to drag logic into their arguments and special pleading. Yet, they do.
Why? Because at some level of consciousness they realize they are on very thin ice. Their courage needs bolstering. That is the core basis for "fellowship". By constant association with other people who think as they do their confidence is boosted. This is also why churches cluster around men of charisma and persuasion. Indoctrination, to be effective, must appeal not to the rational mind--but, rather to the emotional heart of person's hungry for reassurance.
The life of a Christian is a life of apology.
I work in a bookstore in the Religion and Philosophy section. Most of the customers who buy religion books buy the self-help variety. These books are written for a Christian market aimed at fixing what is wrong with that person's life. The dirty little secret nobody talks about is that Christians are just as dysfunctional as everybody else; they just don't like to admit it. The "miracle" doesn't heal them, doesn't repair their wounded soul--it just keeps them in a limbo of anticipated reward at the end of the stick where the carrot of salvation dangles elusively out of reach.
The fact that "THE END IS NEAR" is their only mantra wears thin--very thin indeed. Christians have lived on the edge of Apocalypse for 2000 years! It is all promises, reassurances, false prophecy and anticipation. NOTHING ACTUALLY EVER HAPPENS!! Ohhhh, but it will soooon....very soooooon.
Yeah, right.
Christians just don't get it. Their droning on and on with the same tune over and over becomes an annoying background noise in everyday life which makes non-believers a bit peckish with them. If they stayed among themselves their neurosis could be tolerated without complaint. But, their exhuberant intolerance for others and hubris-laden self-confidence in their own superior opinion are a bit more than intolerable from time to time; especially when they whine about being marginalized.
The majority position is what they hold in the U.S. Yet, they act as though they were always on the cusp of extinction. Perhaps this naturally follows the pulpit pounding propaganda messege of their leaders which tells them they are being persecuted for righteousness. What righteousness?
The prisons are filled with Christians. The movie theatres populated by Christians watching R-rated films. The corrupt politicians who cave in to lobbyists are Christians. The soldiers who kill their fellow man are Christians. Yes, Christians who, so they tell us, aren't "perfect" just forgiven. Oh dear! Such HUBRIS!
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Christianity is just that: an opinion. Be honest and stick with that; don't false advertise this conjecture by labeling it LOGIC. FAITH is for people who are intellectually not up to the task of finding facts to match the claims that tickle their fancy.
Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy don't require proof either, yet, Christian parents teach these to their gullible children. It makes their childhood more enjoyable and delightsome. Well, the same is true for the God fiesta with its pinata of paradise. It helps get you through the night, but, it is just a bit of flummery told by people with honest faces who wish it were so. Terry Walstrom
Why does everybody assume that I'm a Christian?
--Mike
I don't think that one post by Terry reflects a notion that "everyone" is assuming that you're a Christian.
You seem to overlook the plainly obvious post that didn't assume you were a Christian at all, Mike.
As a matter of fact, my post specifically addresses the fact that your defense of "God" fails because you are intentionally vague about which "God" you are even postulating.
That said, I would like to see you address some of the considerations regarding atheism I have expressed in this thread whenever you have the time, namely your mischaracterization of it.
Steve
the-humanist@hotmail.com
I'm not saying that atheism is necessarily evil, I'm merely using the same logic that anti-religion atheists (namely Oedipus in his "Fuck God" post) use.
--Mike
Well, Mike, you seem to be backtracking a bit on your original assertion where you plainly state:
"But what about the atrocities that have been committed in the name of atheism?"
I point this out because this empty mischaracterization of atheism was made prior to Oedipus' comment.
Are you now conceding that atheism does not, in any way, inspire the commission of atrocities?
In turn "theism" is not necessarily evil, in my view, but anti-secular theists like Zarqawi, Robertson, Bin Laden, Phelps and Falwell certainly are.
Malevolent ideologies strike at the heart of humanity and bring evil to the masses.
Neither atheism nor theism are such ideologies.
Perhaps this is common ground we can understand and share.
Steve
I'm not talking about Oedipus's comment; I'm talking about his blog entry.
--Mike
You continue to avoid the issue of the definition of atheism and your mischaracterization of it. The Oedipus complex you seem attached to notwithstanding. That said, the notion that there is a synonymous motivation toward ideologically inspired atrocities in atheism is still a false one. Similarly, atrocities have not been committed in the name of "theism". Neither of these words (atheism/theism) are ideologies or doctrines. You also have yet to define which "God" you are defending. My theory is that as soon as you do, you will have finally postulated an ideology worth examining for behavior. Steve
The God of man. You cannot make any one conception of God any more real than any other. I am defending them all. Insodoing, I am not defending any of the semantics of their holy texts.
--Mike
Mike claimed:
"The God of man. You cannot make any one conception of God any more real than any other. I am defending them all. Insodoing, I am not defending any of the semantics of their holy texts."
In my view, you cannot defend them all because they conflict with each other in a variety of ways to include dogma and ideology.
There are literally thousands of God(s)ess(es) claims throughout history and by cultures vastly different from one another.
Not only that, they critically conflict conceptually and dogmatically.
There is no universal "God" because genders differ, numbers differ, powers differ, favored children differ, etc.
Here are a couple of websites detailing said deities:
http://www.godchecker.com/
and:
http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm
There is no logic at all in claiming one true "God of man".
That said, for anyone reading this thread with interest, I point out again that you continue to avoid the issue of the definition of atheism and your mischaracterization of it.
Again, I find it odd that you can imply "atheism" has a general dogma and doctrine that can inspire atrocities, when it plainly does not, yet ignore the "semantics" of assorted religions.
The "semantics", in my view, is the issue at hand as they are the ideologies that have the potential to inspire atrocities.
"Atheism" as well as "theism" have no other semantics to examine.
Steve
PS Please provide a link to Oedipus' blog entry for me whenever you get a chance, Mike, thanks.
Here's the link http://www.progressiveu.org/160000-fuck-god
hopefully, you'll understand why I chose the arguments I did in my blog.
Dogma is just rhetoric, having texts just makes religion more real for some people. It's really about the spiritual awareness, the validity of God. I'm not favoring any particular God because all (or most) serve the same purpose, and that's what we're arguing: purpose.
--Mike
Thanks very much for the link, Mike.
I'm beginning to see what the issue is here and why you might think that "atheism" is an ideology, when it really is not.
My view is that your issue is not with atheism, but with the intolerance of anti-religionists. I don't have the time to make a comprehensive post on that right now, however, I will return after I read the Oedipus blog.
As for this:
"Dogma is just rhetoric, having texts just makes religion more real for some people. It's really about the spiritual awareness, the validity of God. I'm not favoring any particular God because all (or most) serve the same purpose, and that's what we're arguing: purpose."
I agree that ideologies give people purpose (not just supernaturally based religions, by the way).
I don't find that religious adherents assert that "dogma is just rhetoric".
My view is that they believe that their God is the one true God and whatever their shaman, priest, rabbi, pope, etc. says God commands they adhere to as if it is a *real* being.
This, most often, is that which leads to problems as it conflicts with reality (empirically speaking) in plain view.
There simply is no way to "validate" the supernatural unfalsifiable claims such those who assert their faith in God(s)ess(es) because they are based on "faith" and not empirical evidence.
In any event, I thought what you were arguing was that "atheism" was an ideology that inspires atrocities in the same way religious or political ideologies do.
Plainly, it does not.
The purpose of my posts in this thread was to point out the definition error and mischaracterization of atheism you were making in order to assert a "Defense of God".
I think I have concisely done so and would like to hear from you on that point.
Steve
PS As an aside, what exactly do *you* believe *is* the purpose of God(s)ess(es)?
Alot of people claim that God(')s(')(ess('s)(es') purpose is to help explain thing that aren't readily explainable with the technology at the time. In fact, many people often invalidate religion on that assertion, claiming that, because of scientific advances, we don't need religion. I like to refer to this explanation of the supernatural as mythology as opposed to religion. Religion (using my definition) is a series of guiding principles whose main goal is to supplement for government (not science). We have progressed through the years. Now, what used to be religious maxims have been explored (and in many cases, explained) by philosophers (in my opinion, the Continental Philosophers did it the best). Religion is about making the world better by example (as outlined in Kant's 'absolute morality' theory), but most religions give what without the why. What philosophers have done is given us the why to validate the what. It's a shame that fundies don't do too much philosophizing.
So of course people would want to believe that their God(s)(ess(es)) is/are the only true God(s)(ess(es)), because it justifies their absolute morality and makes it easier for them if they can just say "I go by this book, you should too" instead of saying "do what I do."
--Mike
The problem isn't religion vs. atheism. The problem is when one group tries to make their views the law and making the opposing view illegal. The US's founding fathers understood this, that is why they created the famous separation of powers. I’m a secular humanist, I don’t see any evidence to support the supernatural. Even though I'm not a believer I respect people's right to believe what they want to as long as they don’t hurt anyone. Most would agree the US is loosin' it. It is no longer a proud nation among the others in our world. It is still wealthy, but has lost sight of its roots, freedom. This is happening because religious groups are trying to make their views the laws. The most recent attempt is trying to create a constitutional amendment effectively banning gay marriage; even though this is just a ploy to bring the religious to the ballot box.
What does separation of powers have to do with religion?
--Mike
Mike,
In a balanced world separation of powers has nothing to do with religion or atheism. The problems we’ve seen in our history, and are seeing in the US today are because the lines between government, religion and atheism were drastically blurred. For example, in China the government is considered atheist, not secular. The government has made religious activity illegal. Religious freedom does not exists. Governments should not remove it’s people’s freedoms. In Islamic based counties it is the opposite. The government is a theocracy which kills and arrests anyone outside of the religious rules. You cannot be an open Christian in an Islamic ruled country. Here in the United States we were founded as a secular nation with religious and non-religious freedoms. I am an atheist, my neighbor is a Christian and we live next to each other without problems. However there are groups in this country that would like to change this balance of power with laws against gays (from religious dogmas), prayer in schools and a slew of other things that would make this country more like Iran than what our founders intended. So the separation of powers is the problem. If the US and other nations were secular in their governments but allowed freedom for its diverse population, there would be no cultural wars. Everyone would understand that everyone is different and entitled to believe what they want. Leandro FreeThought News
So why did you mention separation of powers?
--Mike