“The great Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were severely critical of institutional religion, viewing it as a destructive force in society. But they did not explicitly reject God’s existence, nor were they opposed to the idea of religious belief. (There were, of course, numerous other Enlightenment figures who professed atheism, such as Jean Meslier and the French philosopher Baron d’Holbach.) On the contrary, they recognized the inherent value of religious belief in fostering social cohesion and maintaining order, and so sought a means of replacing religion as the basis for making moral judgments in European society. It was political transformation they wanted, not religious reform.

Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism.

It was around this time that anti-theism reached its peak in the writings of the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously viewed religion as the “opium of the people” and sought to eradicate it from society. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” Marx wrote in his celebrated critique of Hegel.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“


State atheism seems like the opposite of state religion, but in a way, state atheism becomes a religion itself, without being a religion. The state becomes the religion and whomever is in charge at the head of government becomes the “god.” Those atheist regimes kill a lot of people, their own people.

Anonymous wrote:According to William Bainbridge's international study, atheism is common among people whose interpersonal social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in advanced industrial nations.

http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr01002.pdf

In a global study on atheism, sociologist Phil Zuckerman noted that countries with higher levels of atheism also had the highest suicide rates compared to countries with lower levels of atheism.

Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge Univ. Press. pp. 58–59. ISBN 978-0521603676

A study on depression and suicide suggested that those without a religious affiliation have a higher suicide attempt rates than those with a religious affiliation.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15569904/

Oh please.

10 Reasons Atheists Do It Better: There is a growing number of atheists in the world. There is also a growing amount of evidence pointing to the benefits of non-believing.

https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/10-benefits-of-atheism


Being ‘godless’ might be good for your health, new study finds

https://religionnews.com/2021/03/04/being-godless-might-be-good-for-your-health-new-study-finds/


Religiosity, Atheism, and Health: The Atheist Advantage: There is no evidence that atheism is associated with poor health.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201803/religiosity-atheism-and-health-the-atheist-advantage


ATHEISTS ARE AS EMOTIONALLY HEALTHY AS BELIEVERS

https://psmag.com/social-justice/atheists-are-as-emotionally-healthy-as-believers

Anonymous wrote:According to William Bainbridge's international study, atheism is common among people whose interpersonal social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in advanced industrial nations.

http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr01002.pdf

In a global study on atheism, sociologist Phil Zuckerman noted that countries with higher levels of atheism also had the highest suicide rates compared to countries with lower levels of atheism.

Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge Univ. Press. pp. 58–59. ISBN 978-0521603676

A study on depression and suicide suggested that those without a religious affiliation have a higher suicide attempt rates than those with a religious affiliation.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15569904/

Well, duh. Suicide is a mortal sin and you wont get into heaven if you do it. Probably a significant deterrent.

According to William Bainbridge's international study, atheism is common among people whose interpersonal social obligations are weak and is also connected to lower fertility rates in advanced industrial nations.

http://www.religjournal.com/pdf/ijrr01002.pdf

In a global study on atheism, sociologist Phil Zuckerman noted that countries with higher levels of atheism also had the highest suicide rates compared to countries with lower levels of atheism.

Zuckerman, Phil (2007). Martin, Michael (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge Univ. Press. pp. 58–59. ISBN 978-0521603676

A study on depression and suicide suggested that those without a religious affiliation have a higher suicide attempt rates than those with a religious affiliation.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15569904/

http://www.atheismresearch.com/

https://religionnews.com/2014/06/09/academic-activist-apatheist-kind-unbeliever/

https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Doubt-Religious-Believers-Nonbelievers/dp/0814433723/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1402323053&sr=1-1&keywords=in+faith+and+in+doubt

I mean here’s the info from the article. It’s not shady.

Anonymous wrote:“One can certainly be both an atheist and an anti-theist. But the point is that the vast majority of atheists – 85 percent according to one poll – are not anti-theists and should not be lumped into the same category as the anti-theist ideologues that inundate the media landscape.”

Ok don’t know how this is controversial?

^ well I think that is true. Indeed, as an atheist probably the nicest this I can say about religion is it doesn't do that much harm. The moderate forms anyway. i get no joy at all going after the believers, and will leave them alone unless they get in my face first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The appeal of New Atheism is that it offered non-believers a muscular and dogmatic form of atheism specifically designed to push back against muscular and dogmatic religious belief. Yet that is also, in my opinion, the main problem with New Atheism. In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to “impose a single truth on the plural world” – to use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks – then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism.“

I think it’s interesting that Reza thinks New Atheism is much like fundamental Christianity, in that zealots have overtaken both movements. I don’t see how this article is “propaganda.”

Propaganda is biased or misleading. This is not.

Oh yes it is.

Atheism, of "New Atheism" whatever the hell that is (not really a thing IMHO, Atheists have been around forever), is nothing like fundamentalist Christianity.

There is no dogma.
There is no bible.
There is no hierarchy.
There are no commandments.
There are no (real) churches.
There are no priests or ministers.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god. That's it.

That is why Azlan's old article is 100% propaganda.

New Atheist voices denounce religion as “innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous,” and condemning those who disagree as “religious apologists.”

On the contrary, polls show that only a small fraction of atheists in the U.S. share such extreme opposition to religious faith.

Can you give an example of or link to such a poll? I'm having a hard time understanding the kind of question that could show how "extreme" atheists are in their opposition to religious faith. "So, by definition, you think that what believers believe isn't true. But are you mad about it? Like, mad mad, or just regular mad?"

You must not have read the article posted at link, because the link to the poll quoted and source is given in the article.

It would probably help if you actually read the article you don’t understand.

Both PP and the article said polls, plural. The Aslan article cites to the same one, twice, and two links deep trying to get to the source of the data you get to a geocities-looking website that provides no methodological explanation and appears to have offered subjects qualitative, subjective, adjective-laden self-descriptions to choose among.

So I'll keep waiting for the polls, plural, that have been promised by Aslan and PP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reza Aslan is smart enough to know his propogandist article is total bullshit and a feeble attempt at a false equivalency.

And he was smart enough to know that 7 years ago when he published it, too.

Really? How do you know that? Any supporting info? Putting words in someone’s mouth and speaking for them w/o any evidence of their words or thoughts is disingenuous and generally wrong.

Sigh... you can't even fricking read. I didn't say what he thought. I said he was smart enough to know it. That's my opinion. Jeebus on a cracker you people are dense.

Reza is smart enough to know your opinion? That would not be intelligence, that would be psychic ability on his part.

You really can't read, at all.

MY.
OPINION.
IS.
THAT.
REZA ASLAN.
IS SMART ENOUGH.
TO KNOW.
HIS ARTICLE.

(stop here, take a breath, drink some juice from the box, the last one matters)

CREATES A FALSE EQUIVALENCY.

Got it now?

No, it’s just a dramatic way of you pretending you know what Reza actually thinks. You can type in all caps and put periods after every word, and it’s still doesn’t change the content of your comment.

I don't "know" what Reza thinks. For the third time: THIS IS MY OPINION. I won't answer the same thing a fourth time, except possibly with ad hominems, since English isn't working.

“One can certainly be both an atheist and an anti-theist. But the point is that the vast majority of atheists – 85 percent according to one poll – are not anti-theists and should not be lumped into the same category as the anti-theist ideologues that inundate the media landscape.”

Ok don’t know how this is controversial?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The appeal of New Atheism is that it offered non-believers a muscular and dogmatic form of atheism specifically designed to push back against muscular and dogmatic religious belief. Yet that is also, in my opinion, the main problem with New Atheism. In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to “impose a single truth on the plural world” – to use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks – then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism.“

I think it’s interesting that Reza thinks New Atheism is much like fundamental Christianity, in that zealots have overtaken both movements. I don’t see how this article is “propaganda.”

Propaganda is biased or misleading. This is not.

Oh yes it is.

Atheism, of "New Atheism" whatever the hell that is (not really a thing IMHO, Atheists have been around forever), is nothing like fundamentalist Christianity.

There is no dogma.
There is no bible.
There is no hierarchy.
There are no commandments.
There are no (real) churches.
There are no priests or ministers.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god. That's it.

That is why Azlan's old article is 100% propaganda.

New Atheist voices denounce religion as “innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous,” and condemning those who disagree as “religious apologists.”

On the contrary, polls show that only a small fraction of atheists in the U.S. share such extreme opposition to religious faith.

Can you give an example of or link to such a poll? I'm having a hard time understanding the kind of question that could show how "extreme" atheists are in their opposition to religious faith. "So, by definition, you think that what believers believe isn't true. But are you mad about it? Like, mad mad, or just regular mad?"

You must not have read the article posted at link, because the link to the poll quoted and source is given in the article.

It would probably help if you actually read the article you don’t understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reza Aslan is smart enough to know his propogandist article is total bullshit and a feeble attempt at a false equivalency.

And he was smart enough to know that 7 years ago when he published it, too.

Really? How do you know that? Any supporting info? Putting words in someone’s mouth and speaking for them w/o any evidence of their words or thoughts is disingenuous and generally wrong.

Sigh... you can't even fricking read. I didn't say what he thought. I said he was smart enough to know it. That's my opinion. Jeebus on a cracker you people are dense.

Reza is smart enough to know your opinion? That would not be intelligence, that would be psychic ability on his part.

You really can't read, at all.

MY.
OPINION.
IS.
THAT.
REZA ASLAN.
IS SMART ENOUGH.
TO KNOW.
HIS ARTICLE.

(stop here, take a breath, drink some juice from the box, the last one matters)

CREATES A FALSE EQUIVALENCY.

Got it now?

No, it’s just a dramatic way of you pretending you know what Reza actually thinks. You can type in all caps and put periods after every word, and it’s still doesn’t change the content of your comment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The appeal of New Atheism is that it offered non-believers a muscular and dogmatic form of atheism specifically designed to push back against muscular and dogmatic religious belief. Yet that is also, in my opinion, the main problem with New Atheism. In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to “impose a single truth on the plural world” – to use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks – then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism.“

I think it’s interesting that Reza thinks New Atheism is much like fundamental Christianity, in that zealots have overtaken both movements. I don’t see how this article is “propaganda.”

Propaganda is biased or misleading. This is not.

Oh yes it is.

Atheism, of "New Atheism" whatever the hell that is (not really a thing IMHO, Atheists have been around forever), is nothing like fundamentalist Christianity.

There is no dogma.
There is no bible.
There is no hierarchy.
There are no commandments.
There are no (real) churches.
There are no priests or ministers.

Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god. That's it.

That is why Azlan's old article is 100% propaganda.

New Atheist voices denounce religion as “innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous,” and condemning those who disagree as “religious apologists.”

On the contrary, polls show that only a small fraction of atheists in the U.S. share such extreme opposition to religious faith.

Can you give an example of or link to such a poll? I'm having a hard time understanding the kind of question that could show how "extreme" atheists are in their opposition to religious faith. "So, by definition, you think that what believers believe isn't true. But are you mad about it? Like, mad mad, or just regular mad?"

I am not the author of this article. The information contained in the article was written and sourced by the author.

Anonymous wrote:In other words: atheists are free to not believe, but they better not talk about it. It takes two seconds to realize that this isn't useful, fair, or productive.

Reza: So, you don't believe?
New Atheist: No, I don't believe.
Reza: Why don't you believe? I'd love to have a real conversation here.
New Atheist: Sure, I'm happy to have a dialogue. I don't believe because I think the history of religions are filled with evil acts.
Reza: You polemicist! How dare you paint religion with such a brush!
New Atheist: Well, you asked.
Reza: You can't prove religion isn't true, can you?
New Atheist: Actually, science is incompatible with many common religious claims.
Reza: Aha! Now you're trying to replace faith with science! Who's the zealot now?

Is this something from your imagination?

Here's Reza getting a taste of his own medicine.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/sns-viral-video-fox-news-interview-reza-aslan-html-htmlstory.html

Oh wait, you guys didn't know Reza was a Muslim and his book has been accused of being anti-Christian?

In other words: atheists are free to not believe, but they better not talk about it. It takes two seconds to realize that this isn't useful, fair, or productive.

Reza: So, you don't believe?
New Atheist: No, I don't believe.
Reza: Why don't you believe? I'd love to have a real conversation here.
New Atheist: Sure, I'm happy to have a dialogue. I don't believe because I think the history of religions are filled with evil acts.
Reza: You polemicist! How dare you paint religion with such a brush!
New Atheist: Well, you asked.
Reza: You can't prove religion isn't true, can you?
New Atheist: Actually, science is incompatible with many common religious claims.
Reza: Aha! Now you're trying to replace faith with science! Who's the zealot now?