Replies

But on the other hand, the atheist hasn't needed Jihad; he's had Communist International, half a century of Cold War, the current subjugation of 1.5 billion people in mainland China... After only a few recent centuries of being mixed with international politics, atheism has probably already matched or surpassed all of history's religious zealotry for deaths caused, persecution carried out and destruction levied. Go team!

This is totally disingenuous. There really is no such thing as "atheism." Not believing in something is not an ideology. There are millions of things I don't believe in, because they are complete nonsense or fictions, and some of them are things some people believe whole-heartedly. I do not believe in astrology, is that a-astrologism? I do not believe Allah. Is that a-allahism.

No atheist ever embraced socialism, communist, fascism, or or any other oppresive, statist, or collectivist ideology because he was an atheist. The atheism associated with these ideologies is the consequence of the ideologies, not the other way around. A disbelief is not an ideology. It is simply the absence of credulity concerning one concept, period.

My point about the Muslim terrorist was that religion is no protection from political evil. Another point I did not make is, atheism never results in those kinds of evil, all by itself. Some other ideology must be added to it. Religion is frequently the source of evil all by itself.

You might also be interested in these:

See Post #22 and Post #67.

Hank

There really is no such thing as "atheism."

Actually, there is, though you're right in that it isn't an ideology, because it's the absence fo a belief. There are words to describe abcences, such as asymmetry, apolitical and amoral (not to be confused with immoral, though many do fall into that confusion).

There really is no such thing as "atheism." Not believing in something is not an ideology.

I completely disagree. All ideologies include beliefs in things and therefore directly lack of beliefs in certain other things that are their opposite. Atheism is a belief in the nonexistence of a God, and that belief has certain generic implications for every other aspect of how the atheist views the world.

No atheist ever embraced socialism, communist, fascism, or or any other oppresive, statist, or collectivist ideology because he was an atheist.

I disagree. Realizing the amoral implications of his beliefs, many an atheist has had no good reason not to pursue his gut feeling, whether it be creating a heaven on earth or not. I'll agree that to do these things means that the atheist has applied his belief iconsistently; but that will happen any time the atheist applies his belief to the political, whether it's Rand, Marx or anyone else. The atheist is not obliged by any preexisting value to respect anyone else or anything for any reason. The best Rand could do was to promote the pursuit of continued existence; but existence is not an end unto itself, and pursuing its continuation for yourself is no more objectively virtuous than pursuing suicide.

religion is no protection from political evil.

And again, the atheist has no reason to believe that anything at all is "evil."