The God Delusion

[Sweetdeath]

You seem easily frustrated.

Would it bother you if Christians claimed that religion makes the world a better place? Is it really so surprising that atheists tend to believe that it makes the world a poorer place?

I'm seriously unsure if he is sarcastic or not.  o_o;

[DeterminedJuliet]

he's posted a few "ARGGHH!!/GRRRR!!" posts in response to these sorts of things.

[technolud]

This is sort of an old thread, but I've been searching for "atheism as a religion", I've heard that term used a few times and it confounds me.  This thread seems to touch on this.  Are there any others which go into more depth?

Also:

In Christianity, it is immoral not to believe.

Stevil posted this, where does this reference come from?

[Stevil]

Also:

In Christianity, it is immoral not to believe.

Stevil posted this, where does this reference come from?

Kevin Crady, a very intelligent, Bible literate articulate atheist has posted some fantastic (but long) posts, which I adore.

Here is one relevant to my comment you quoted above.

Yes.  "Law" depends on coercion.  Without police, jails, etc. "law" would be nothing but impotent words.  Morality would continue to exist.  A moral person is someone who chooses the good and refrains from the evil even if they could "get away with" doing otherwise.  Of course, law and the coercion it entails is necessary in any organized society.  But notice what it is necessary for: to deter--or failing that, to retaliate against and/or confine--those who would otherwise make evil choices. 

Morality, on the other hand, stems from choice.  Apart from choice, morality ceases to exist.  The person who refrains from embezzling money at work only because they're afraid they'll get caught is not considered morally praiseworthy.  The person who refrains from embezzling money even when they're certain they could get away with it, is.  Once coercion enters, morality vanishes.  If someone embezzles money because someone has kidnapped his little girl and threatened to kill her if he didn't, we consider him a victim, not immoral.  If you walk up to somebody on the sidewalk, say "I'm taking donations for the United Way," then pull out a gun and say "DONATE 50 BUCKS OR I BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT!" the "donor" does not receive moral praise for her charity.

We assign moral credit or blame to others for their choices precisely because morality is inherently autonomous.  It is their virtue or vice.  A person who refrains from some evil act only out of fear of punishment has no moral virtue1.  They act "good" only because their free will has been violated by external coercion.  Christians commonly bring up the "free will" argument to explain why God does such a fine job of acting like he doesn't exist.  If God healed amputees, or did any other unambiguously miraculous or divine thing, they tell us, we would not be free to choose whether or not to believe in him.  This choice-to-believe then, is held as a moral act.  This is why Christians who believe that only Christians are "saved" think that atheists and believers in other religions "must" be immoral.  To disbelieve in Christianity is not merely a mistake, like thinking that the sun goes around the Earth or that a mirage in the desert is a pool of water, but a sin. 

If God's existence were self-evident, then the choice to believe and worship would cease to be moral and become legal.2.  Since A) God's existence is not self-evident3, and B) guilt-tripping is much more effective than threats of force4, turning the question of God's existence into a moral issue rather than a factual one is an extremely powerful adaptation of the Christian meme-set.  Hence the importance, to me, of depriving Christianity of the weapon of morality.

[waitin4godot]

I remember having read a book by Dawkins but i remember that his arguments attacked people's actions rather than ideologies/doctrines/philosophies and that wasn't what i wanted to read...maybe it was God is not great..don't remember..

[Tank]

I remember having read a book by Dawkins but i remember that his arguments attacked people's actions rather than ideologies/doctrines/philosophies and that wasn't what i wanted to read...maybe it was God is not great..don't remember..

God is not Great is by Christopher Hitchens. The God Delusion is the only polemic by Dawkins.

[waitin4godot]

I remember having read a book by Dawkins but i remember that his arguments attacked people's actions rather than ideologies/doctrines/philosophies and that wasn't what i wanted to read...maybe it was God is not great..don't remember..

God is not Great is by Christopher Hitchens. The God Delusion is the only polemic by Dawkins.

yep you're right ..thank you..it was Hitchens then..

[Sweetdeath]

I heart Hitchens ;A;

[Hector Valdez]

Dawkins? Oh great, the british are light years ahead of us. The sad thing is that british atheism is a bit too dry for my tastes... I do love the top hats, though.

[Asmodean]

Atheism can be... Wet?

I suppose there are differences, as most atheists here are pretty... Bland. Comes with living in a place where religion is a secondary concern at best. Atheists in more religious areas have a bit more passion against the divine... But what exactly is dry atheism?

[Hector Valdez]

Wow. I just looked over my previous posts in this thread, from before I had deconverted. Talk about entering the twilight zone...