Atheism is losing popularity because it won’t own it’s own sins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the evidence that "atheism is losing popularity" when we know that the "nones" continue to grow every year?

The author claims just because people leave religion doesn’t mean they stop believing in something.

He claims a lot of people have been disenchanted by the new atheist movement and are re-examining religion. The author has multiple articles on this issue.

Then perhaps the author is confused? Just because atheists reject organized religion or belief in a god, it doesn't mean they refuse to believe in common decency and humane treatment of all peoples and living beings.

I take offense at the underlying notion that atheists are somehow less principled due to having no god.

On the contrary, I believe that owning your actions, and accepting the world is made up of individual acts of free will, can be a scary, and also, liberating, thought. You do good because you have that power. Not because a higher-order being has told you: "here are the rules".

ok, explain how atheistic regimes killed millions of their own people, and how that’s either ignored or denied by atheists?

That’s the point the author makes. Not that religion hasn’t done bad things- but atheists have perpetrated mass killings and those are ignored while atheists continue to blame religion for everything bad. Also, religion does do good in the world, and that good is also ignored by atheists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha, no. Aside from a very few outliers, there is no “atheism” that is actively trying to recruit or even cares about persuading people to join. There’s nothing TO join. It is not a religion - it is the absence of religion. That said I am
confident that the number of atheists will grow over time given the continued failures of organized religion.

There are entire countries that mandate atheism and actively oppose their own people practicing whatever they decide is right for them/their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im a no. 2 atheist. For myself, I do not believe in God. My husband is more agnostic. It’s not about whether religion has done good in society, but belief. Right now, it’s killing thousands in Gaza and Israel.

And as the author points out, communist atheists killed millions and no atheist will explain how that’s not the same thing as they accuse religion of doing.

Because they did not do it in the name of atheism.

Just like the 911 terrorists did not do it because they don’t believer in Shiva.

You’re making the same fallacy as pointed out by those above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've long felt that there are two kinds of "religious" people in the world:
1. Those who truly believe.
2. Those who have communal, family and cultural ties to a religion *and its Holidays*, and identify with this religion on surveys.

In reality, I don't think there are many people who have unshakable faith in their holy texts. Most of them belong to category #2, which is a perfectly fine reason to have a religion. They may loosely believe in their god(s), but they don't believe other religions are the enemy, and they're here mostly for their community, because it's always been done this way in their families/ where they live.

With higher education and professional mobility, I feel many people from #1 will slide to #2, and people from #2 will slide to having no particular religious identity. And that's a perfectly normal thing to happen. It's good, in the sense that they realize they can be perfectly decent human beings who give to the needy and live according to basic humanist principles...without declaring allegiance to a particular faith system.

That’s great for you, but that’s not what the author is saying.

He is saying people who were drawn to the new atheists have turned away from them, because the new atheists attacked religion and didn’t acknowledge religion also does positive things in the world and helps people.

Also, he says science doesn’t give people meaning or satisfaction in life, and that people are always going to search for meaning in life. Meaning doesn’t come from attending a church for holidays or cultural experiences.

I believe that humans do search for meaning in life, it’s actually undeniable that they do. If you attend church because of the reasons you have explained, I understand.

But I don’t believe the majority of people are superficially going through life and have no desire to find a deeper meaning and purpose.

Secular humanists cannot deny that their beliefs in human rights, freedom and sacrifice were handed to them by the followers of Jesus, not enlightenment scientists.

PP you replied to.

I'm a research scientist. My scientific enthusiasm does not replace a search for greater meaning, that part is true. There are religious people in the science world, I even knew a monk who was also a research scientist!

However, I strongly disagree about humanist values being transferred from Christianity. Not at all. Most religions in the world encourage humanist values. The greatest humanists I know happen to be Muslim and Bouddhist.

You are showing your Christian and western-centric world view, PP, and it's a narrow and ignorant one. You should learn a little bit more about the world history of religion and philosophers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Atheists don't need religion to tell them right vs. wrong. They don't need divine repercussions if they do wrong. They have an actual moral code that guides them.

What moral code did the atheists who killed millions of their own people follow?

That’s what the author is pointing out. He points out people have left new atheism in droves because of this contradiction.

[Anonymous]

All of the data - and I mean every single poll, survey, or analysis - indicates the exact opposite of what this author is claiming.

There is no evidence to support the claim.

At least it’s consistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I've long felt that there are two kinds of "religious" people in the world:
1. Those who truly believe.
2. Those who have communal, family and cultural ties to a religion *and its Holidays*, and identify with this religion on surveys.

In reality, I don't think there are many people who have unshakable faith in their holy texts. Most of them belong to category #2, which is a perfectly fine reason to have a religion. They may loosely believe in their god(s), but they don't believe other religions are the enemy, and they're here mostly for their community, because it's always been done this way in their families/ where they live.

With higher education and professional mobility, I feel many people from #1 will slide to #2, and people from #2 will slide to having no particular religious identity. And that's a perfectly normal thing to happen. It's good, in the sense that they realize they can be perfectly decent human beings who give to the needy and live according to basic humanist principles...without declaring allegiance to a particular faith system.

if we are talking about surveys, you can have someone like me. I am truly an atheist, not even an agnostic. But sometimes the surveys are worded in such a way that I read it basically as which chaplain should be talking to your relatives if you kick the bucket? I guess it falls under your #2, cultural affiliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im a no. 2 atheist. For myself, I do not believe in God. My husband is more agnostic. It’s not about whether religion has done good in society, but belief. Right now, it’s killing thousands in Gaza and Israel.

And as the author points out, communist atheists killed millions and no atheist will explain how that’s not the same thing as they accuse religion of doing.

Because they did not do it in the name of atheism.

Just like the 911 terrorists did not do it because they don’t believer in Shiva.

You’re making the same fallacy as pointed out by those above.

Historically, atheism has generally been an integral part of communist ideology.

Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century through genocide, according to Le Monde, more than 100 million people according to The Black Book of Communism (Courtois, Stéphane, et al., 1997), and according to Cleon Skousen in his best-selling book The Naked Communist.

It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives. Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.

If you don’t agree with the above, that’s your opinion.

But the author is stating that new atheism has collapsed because new atheists don’t have an explanation for the above, yet blame religion for everything wrong with the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im a no. 2 atheist. For myself, I do not believe in God. My husband is more agnostic. It’s not about whether religion has done good in society, but belief. Right now, it’s killing thousands in Gaza and Israel.

And as the author points out, communist atheists killed millions and no atheist will explain how that’s not the same thing as they accuse religion of doing.

Because they did not do it in the name of atheism.

Just like the 911 terrorists did not do it because they don’t believer in Shiva.

You’re making the same fallacy as pointed out by those above.

Historically, atheism has generally been an integral part of communist ideology.

Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century through genocide, according to Le Monde, more than 100 million people according to The Black Book of Communism (Courtois, Stéphane, et al., 1997), and according to Cleon Skousen in his best-selling book The Naked Communist.

It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives. Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.

If you don’t agree with the above, that’s your opinion.

But the author is stating that new atheism has collapsed because new atheists don’t have an explanation for the above, yet blame religion for everything wrong with the world.

you’re creating a strawman. normal people deciding whether to go to church or whether god exists are not engaging in a historical appraisal of whether atheistic or theistic governments are historically harmful. they are assessing what makes sense to them and for their families. the sharp decline in engagement in formal religion pretty much tells the story in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've long felt that there are two kinds of "religious" people in the world:
1. Those who truly believe.
2. Those who have communal, family and cultural ties to a religion *and its Holidays*, and identify with this religion on surveys.

In reality, I don't think there are many people who have unshakable faith in their holy texts. Most of them belong to category #2, which is a perfectly fine reason to have a religion. They may loosely believe in their god(s), but they don't believe other religions are the enemy, and they're here mostly for their community, because it's always been done this way in their families/ where they live.

With higher education and professional mobility, I feel many people from #1 will slide to #2, and people from #2 will slide to having no particular religious identity. And that's a perfectly normal thing to happen. It's good, in the sense that they realize they can be perfectly decent human beings who give to the needy and live according to basic humanist principles...without declaring allegiance to a particular faith system.

That’s great for you, but that’s not what the author is saying.

He is saying people who were drawn to the new atheists have turned away from them, because the new atheists attacked religion and didn’t acknowledge religion also does positive things in the world and helps people.

Also, he says science doesn’t give people meaning or satisfaction in life, and that people are always going to search for meaning in life. Meaning doesn’t come from attending a church for holidays or cultural experiences.

I believe that humans do search for meaning in life, it’s actually undeniable that they do. If you attend church because of the reasons you have explained, I understand.

But I don’t believe the majority of people are superficially going through life and have no desire to find a deeper meaning and purpose.

Secular humanists cannot deny that their beliefs in human rights, freedom and sacrifice were handed to them by the followers of Jesus, not enlightenment scientists.

PP you replied to.

I'm a research scientist. My scientific enthusiasm does not replace a search for greater meaning, that part is true. There are religious people in the science world, I even knew a monk who was also a research scientist!

However, I strongly disagree about humanist values being transferred from Christianity. Not at all. Most religions in the world encourage humanist values. The greatest humanists I know happen to be Muslim and Bouddhist.

You are showing your Christian and western-centric world view, PP, and it's a narrow and ignorant one. You should learn a little bit more about the world history of religion and philosophers.

Scientists did not give any moral code to the world. (That’s not their job, anyway.)

The Sermon on the Mount is the foundation of morals and ethics in the Western world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im a no. 2 atheist. For myself, I do not believe in God. My husband is more agnostic. It’s not about whether religion has done good in society, but belief. Right now, it’s killing thousands in Gaza and Israel.

And as the author points out, communist atheists killed millions and no atheist will explain how that’s not the same thing as they accuse religion of doing.

Because they did not do it in the name of atheism.

Just like the 911 terrorists did not do it because they don’t believer in Shiva.

You’re making the same fallacy as pointed out by those above.

Historically, atheism has generally been an integral part of communist ideology.

Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century through genocide, according to Le Monde, more than 100 million people according to The Black Book of Communism (Courtois, Stéphane, et al., 1997), and according to Cleon Skousen in his best-selling book The Naked Communist.

It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives. Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.

If you don’t agree with the above, that’s your opinion.

But the author is stating that new atheism has collapsed because new atheists don’t have an explanation for the above, yet blame religion for everything wrong with the world.

Your mistake (and the author's) is thinking that atheists are homogeneous and think alike. We are scattered all over the world, and celebrate our nation and main religious Holidays just like you. Atheists are essentially hard to identify and categorize.

Just because communism did not work out as a system of government, and was responsible for the greatest killings in history, doesn't mean that various individuals who don't believe in god are going to think: "Huh, maybe I should get myself a god". I would also like to point out that Communist leaders installed autocracies that made their own people suffer. In that sense, communism is not the culprit. It's the murderous dictators who are the culprits. I would place Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler in the same category, despite their various systems of government.

And, as a PP pointed out, the entire premise of the author's argument is wrong, since the population that is unaffiliated with a particular religion is growing in this country and most other developed countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im a no. 2 atheist. For myself, I do not believe in God. My husband is more agnostic. It’s not about whether religion has done good in society, but belief. Right now, it’s killing thousands in Gaza and Israel.

And as the author points out, communist atheists killed millions and no atheist will explain how that’s not the same thing as they accuse religion of doing.

Because they did not do it in the name of atheism.

Just like the 911 terrorists did not do it because they don’t believer in Shiva.

You’re making the same fallacy as pointed out by those above.

Historically, atheism has generally been an integral part of communist ideology.

Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century through genocide, according to Le Monde, more than 100 million people according to The Black Book of Communism (Courtois, Stéphane, et al., 1997), and according to Cleon Skousen in his best-selling book The Naked Communist.

It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives. Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.

If you don’t agree with the above, that’s your opinion.

But the author is stating that new atheism has collapsed because new atheists don’t have an explanation for the above, yet blame religion for everything wrong with the world.

you’re creating a strawman. normal people deciding whether to go to church or whether god exists are not engaging in a historical appraisal of whether atheistic or theistic governments are historically harmful. they are assessing what makes sense to them and for their families. the sharp decline in engagement in formal religion pretty much tells the story in the US.

People drawn in to “new atheism” noticed the contradiction and left new atheism.

It’s clear “new atheism” failed. That doesn’t mean there are no atheists.

The author states people became disillusioned with new atheism because it blames religion for everything bad in the world, doesn’t acknowledge that religion does positive things in the world, and refuses to take responsibility and explain why atheistic governments kill their own people by the millions.

Most simply I would explain it as people don’t want to live under a government that kills it’s own people, that can’t be popular. If you delve at all into the history of atheism you will see that governments who mandate atheism have very high body counts.

I don’t know who would find that appealing to the point of saying: that’s where I find meaning and purpose- a government that kills everyone possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im a no. 2 atheist. For myself, I do not believe in God. My husband is more agnostic. It’s not about whether religion has done good in society, but belief. Right now, it’s killing thousands in Gaza and Israel.

And as the author points out, communist atheists killed millions and no atheist will explain how that’s not the same thing as they accuse religion of doing.

Because they did not do it in the name of atheism.

Just like the 911 terrorists did not do it because they don’t believer in Shiva.

You’re making the same fallacy as pointed out by those above.

Historically, atheism has generally been an integral part of communist ideology.

Communist regimes killed 60 million in the 20th century through genocide, according to Le Monde, more than 100 million people according to The Black Book of Communism (Courtois, Stéphane, et al., 1997), and according to Cleon Skousen in his best-selling book The Naked Communist.

It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives. Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.

If you don’t agree with the above, that’s your opinion.

But the author is stating that new atheism has collapsed because new atheists don’t have an explanation for the above, yet blame religion for everything wrong with the world.

Your mistake (and the author's) is thinking that atheists are homogeneous and think alike. We are scattered all over the world, and celebrate our nation and main religious Holidays just like you. Atheists are essentially hard to identify and categorize.

Just because communism did not work out as a system of government, and was responsible for the greatest killings in history, doesn't mean that various individuals who don't believe in god are going to think: "Huh, maybe I should get myself a god". I would also like to point out that Communist leaders installed autocracies that made their own people suffer. In that sense, communism is not the culprit. It's the murderous dictators who are the culprits. I would place Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler in the same category, despite their various systems of government.

And, as a PP pointed out, the entire premise of the author's argument is wrong, since the population that is unaffiliated with a particular religion is growing in this country and most other developed countries.

The author is talking about new atheism, specifically how Richard Dawkins is proving to be his own worst enemy via his writings and appearances.

Also, people are leaving new atheism because it’s overwhelmingly led by old rich white men.

Also- new atheist leadership has sex scandals and have been accused of sexual abuse and rape and it has been covered up- exactly what has happened in organized religion, and atheists are not foaming at the mouth about those cover-ups.

My take is that new atheism is much like the organized religion it so strongly opposes, and the people who were drawn to new atheism found that out and left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:—-> How can an athiest own sins when they don't believe in that?

What do atheists call it when they do something bad? Just insert that word for sin, the point still stands.

I don't believe in god(s) or a higher power. I do wha I feel is right. If I make a mistake, I don't flagilate myself, nor do I experiennce guilt or regret. This is because I know what my intentions and motives are. If I make a mistake, I correct it asap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:—-> How can an athiest own sins when they don't believe in that?

What do atheists call it when they do something bad? Just insert that word for sin, the point still stands.

I don't believe in god(s) or a higher power. I do wha I feel is right. If I make a mistake, I don't flagilate myself, nor do I experiennce guilt or regret. This is because I know what my intentions and motives are. If I make a mistake, I correct it asap.

Ok, how do you know what is right? By how you feel about something? So whatever you feel is right is right to you?

You don’t experience regret?

You don’t experience guilt?

So you have never done anything to regret or feel guilty about your entire life?