Why Stefan is Wrong About Atheism

[WasatchMan]

Here are my thoughts on Stefan's video "Why I Was Wrong About Atheism" (

)

 

1. “For the most part atheism is an outgrowth of faith in the modern god called the state.” Atheism is only and specifically the idea that there is no god it gods, it has no intellectual or philosophical content that would lead one to anything else 

 

2. He hasn't proven that the nihilism and leftism of the majority of atheists is a cause of atheism or atheism is a cause of the leftism or nihilism. This is a chicken and egg thing that is pretty complicated.  Do more people come to leftism and nihilism because of atheism, or are more people atheism because of leftism and nihilism?

 

3. Stefan's claim that religious people don't force him to do anything but lefty socialists do. “They [Christians] don’t force me to do anything.  On the other hand, the lefties, by constantly running to big daddy government to enforce their moral conscience on everyone else, regardless of consequences, regardless of ethics, regardless of voluntarism, regardless of the need to choose that what is essential to virtue, socialist by running to big daddy government, well the force me to do lots and lots of things. They take my money, they bury me in regulations, they involve my cash in foreign wars, they do lots of god awful things, and if I try to follow my own conscience and do what I think is best with my recourses, well they support cats in blue showing up with guns to drag me off to jail because I am not paying my taxes.”

1. Christians are in favor of war and taxes.  According to gallop, “Protestants and frequent churchgoers most supportive of Iraq War”. Not sure where this idea that Christians are antithetical to the state is coming from and is being taken as a given.
2. Atheists are 3.1% of the American population and the Government is more than 99.9% operated by religious people. [post=http://tinypic.com/r/2woxi6b/9][/post] I don't know how we square that circle.
3. Even if we accept Christians are not forcing adults to follow their ideas, and are just asking them to submit to God or go to hell (how pleasant of them), they are forcing and brainwashing helpless children, which is child abuse. http://youtu.be/Xb2dZqgGm50
4. 3.1% of the US is atheist. On the other hand here is the percentages of people who are Christian 86% in 1990, 78.6% in 2001, 70.6% in 2014 therefore the dominant cultural force we are living today came from a Christian dominated culture. The drop to me indicates how the Information Age has destroyed the credibility if Christianity by shining light on 

4. Throwing the baby (atheism) out with the bath water (leftist and nihilistic atheists). “We all seem to need an irrational authority to order us about and if we take away God, wushhh, into the power vacuum rushes the state.”

 

Atheism is a new cultural phenomenon which has greatly expanded due to the Information Age. It is the rebellious teenager who has woken up one day and realized that his parents rules are authoritarian, abusive, and manipulative and decides that he is no longer subject to their rules. However, there is no other direction available to him to fill that void. He becomes the rebel without a cause. He finds his new rules in other lost teenagers, in the nihilistic programming of the media, in his leftist teacher who tells him everything is relative and there is no right or preferable values, well except altruism of course. The void left by his authoritarian parents is filled by chance and by whatever other ideological structure is already formed to step in.

 

Christianity made up 86% of the US population in 1990, 78.6% in 2001, 70.6% in 2014 therefore the dominant cultural force we are living today came from a Christian dominated culture. The dramatic fall in Christianity to me indicates how the Information Age has destroyed the credibility of Christianity by shining light on its irrationality and dogma.  However, as religion has disappeared from being the dominant cultural force, the only pre-packaged, ready to assimilate, ideology around to catch the rebels has been Marxism. 

 

Now we stumble across this teenager, what do we do? Do we cower in disgust at what the nihilist anti-intellectual culture and leftists teachers has filled him with and tell him to go back to his authoritarian abusive parents because at least he would have structure? Or do we teach him how to think? How to reason? How to rebuild a new structure on the solid foundation of philosophy? Stefan, we have to give these people who are leaving religion a new foundation, the right methodology of thinking - philosophy. Don't send people back to religion because you are disgusted with what the void of religion and what it has been filled with so far.  Lets build the RIGHT structure, one built on reason, logic, consistent methodologies, and then fill this void as much as we can.  Push back nihilism and leftism - demonstrate it to be the evil that it is.  Do not retreat back to religious dogma and superstition as a form of structure.  The change is going to happen regardless, and if we aren't there Marxism will continue to feed off of the rebels.  You have made huge strides already to present a new way, a way of thinking, thoughtfulness, logic, philosophy, don’t give up now.

[Lara]

"Throwing the baby (atheism) out with the bath water (leftist and nihilistic atheists). “We all seem to need an irrational authority to order us about and if we take away God, wushhh, into the power vacuum rushes the state.”

 

I can see that here you're using the equivalent of the "Not all women" argument. Not all women are crazy feminist monsters. Not all Muslims are crazy terrorists. And so on. In my opinion, Stefan is not "throwing the baby out with the bath water". That would be using a collectivist way of thinking and anyone who appreciates the conservative values knows better than being a collectivist and favors individualism and meritocracy instead. Stefan here is not saying that he now thinks we should all believe in God! Atheism has become as religious, as intolerant and irrational as a cult and instead of being pro-rationality, pro-freedom and pro-thinking, it's become as totalitarian as all the religions it claimed to be better and superior to. Atheism gained momentum with the expansion of communist ideals even before the Sixties, just like feminism, and together, atheism and communism, have destroyed the values and practices which were holding societies together (family, marriage, parenting, and so on). These were some of the many values that atheism has thrown away with the bath water, just because they were affiliated with religion. And by the way, I think we should stop treating "nihilistic teenagers" like mere victims of leftist teachers and abusive parents. Nowadays, if you tell your kids to turn off the light when they leave the room, you're called abusive and I'm not exaggerating.

Stefan is not sending anybody back to religion: let's stop pretending that atheism is morally superior to religion. Power destroys and corrupts everything and atheism is very powerful: schools and the media are in the hands of leftists (mostly women) who do not promote critical thinking nor freedom of speech. If we care about the future and the "world", we need to see past dogmas (all religions are bad) and try to find the valuable points in everybody's arguments and recognize that atheists can be our "enemies" too, in the moment in which they espouse ideals such as big government, suppression of free thinking and due process, victim culture and irrational, feelings-based politics.

My personal advice is think for yourself. I am an atheist but my ideals coincide with the ones Christians have and for a long time I felt guilty for that, I thought it was impossible to be a conservative and an atheist at the same time. I married early, had kids as soon as our finances allowed us to, I happily serve my husband in any possible way and homeschool my children. I am not religious yet I try to teach my kids to be honorable, hard-working, rational and free.

[fractional slacker]

Most atheists are leftists. Most leftists despise the philosophy of freedom.  Therefore atheists oppose libertarian ideas.

Most (American) religious folk/Christians are on the right. Most of those on right prefer limited and/or a smaller (than current) government. Therefore religious folks are compatible with, or at least indifferent to, libertarian ideas. 
That's my syllogism interpretation. 

[Libertus]

> Most atheists are leftists. Most leftists despise the philosophy of freedom.  Therefore atheists oppose libertarian ideas.

Most A are B.
Most B do X.
Therefore, some A do X.

 

That's a valid syllogism.

 

Therefore, all A do X
Therefore, most A do X

 

Are not.

 

If you leave out the qualifier some you're being vague on purpose (sophistry). Imprecise language like "atheists oppose" leaves wide open whether you're talking about all atheists, or some, or most. Most commonly you will be interpreted as implying all or at least most. Especially when you talk about "atheism" as a whole, which doesn't make sense either, since absent group there's no rational reason to lump a bunch of people together who have nothing in common except for lack of belief in the existence of a certain thing.

 

This is nothing more than sophistry based on group think.

 

Most libertarians are male
Most males masturbate

Therefore libertarians are a bunch of wankers.

Do you see the problem with this "syllogism"? As long as you're being vague, it's not even called a syllogism. You need to remove all vagueness to reveal the underlying structure. This structure is called a "syllogism".

[fraytormenta]

I grew up in Moscow. Lessons from USSR: in order to push atheism on the rest of the population you have to mass murder priests, require atheism for gainful employment, teach atheism in schools from the youngest age, play constant propaganda against religion on all of state media, and ban religious books. When you do all that, only 50% of your population will secretly get baptized and only 70% will identify as religious when your thieving regime collapses. It really is a bad idea that, without physical coercion, stands little ground. Toss it. If an idea is tried and yielded disaster, toss it. If an idea has little utility, toss it. If you can't see benefit in your life from the idea or can't be sure that it makes a better world for your children, toss it.

 

I am a former atheist, a convinced Christian. I registered on this forum, Stefan, to talk to you - I think some of my life experiences, a little bit of life wisdom, and reason in conversation can help you decide to become a Christian when you have found yourself at this crossroad. I am willing to call in.

[neeeel]

I grew up in Moscow. Lessons from USSR: in order to push atheism on the rest of the population you have to mass murder priests, require atheism for gainful employment, teach atheism in schools from the youngest age, play constant propaganda against religion on all of state media, and ban religious books. When you do all that, only 50% of your population will secretly get baptized and only 70% will identify as religious when your thieving regime collapses. It really is a bad idea that, without physical coercion, stands little ground. Toss it. If an idea is tried and yielded disaster, toss it. If an idea has little utility, toss it. If you can't see benefit in your life from the idea or can't be sure that it makes a better world for your children, toss it.

 

I am a former atheist, a convinced Christian. I registered on this forum, Stefan, to talk to you - I think some of my life experiences, a little bit of life wisdom, and reason in conversation can help you decide to become a Christian when you have found yourself at this crossroad. I am willing to call in.

 

 

Sorry, but this doesnt make sense. IF its true that theres no god, or no proof for god, THEN the default position is to not believe. Whether its a "bad idea" or not , is irrelevant. Its not possible to toss atheism, since atheism is simply the non belief in a god or gods, its not possible to just toss that aside on a whim.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

"The dramatic fall in Christianity to me indicates how the Information Age has destroyed the credibility of Christianity by shining light on its irrationality and dogma.  However, as religion has disappeared from being the dominant cultural force, the only pre-packaged, ready to assimilate, ideology around to catch the rebels has been Marxism."

 

So people are leaving Christianity because it is irrational and dogmatic, but they are fleeing to Marxism which is equally irrational and dogmatic. I'm not sure how that doesn't contradict your thesis that it was a lack of credibility demonstrated in Christianity that led people to become atheists. At least since Christianity has been on the decline in the period you cited, the state has grown larger and more encompassing of society. I'm not sure how statism has displayed more credibility than Christianity in the past 20 years. The information age is also alongside the age of state education, Prussian in its brutality and disrespect for autonomy and self thinking, and Soviet in its willingness to drug or imprison those who do not conform.

[fraytormenta]

neeel: perhaps it does not make sense to your because the main premise of your argument is false.

 

the rest: information age has been great for Christianity. It has never spanned as far geographically or commanded as much influence on culture globally. In some areas there has been a decline of influence, but this is currently uncharacteristic of the global shifts. This is not just a sediment of stasis, it is a partial demonstration of its verity, value, and relevance.

[Libertus]

I grew up in Germany and the government didn't do anything to "push" atheism on people. We still have our church holidays, religious indoctrination in schools, a great influx of muslim people coming into the country, building new mosques, tax money for churches, extra rights for churches to hang up signs and billboards all over the country, a christian party in power, ... and yet the total number of theists is in decline, has been for the last 40 years.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Welfare and subsidization of single motherhood have the effect of breaking up the nuclear family. When government cheese is not available, private charity and large families tend to prosper because of the financial benefits they provide. In a single mother household, I am not sure religion has the proclivity it does in a two parent family to be passed on and ingrained into the offspring. Single mothers have poor credibility with their children and could be less successful in passing down their religion.

[Boss]

Feminism is only and specifically the idea that is for equal rights for woman, it has no intellectual or philosophical content that would lead one to anything else 

So lets not talk about the tall Asian, the majority of people are either more liberal or conservative. Only 10% of atheist are conservative and want smaller government. Atheist are majority liberal. At this state if the majority of people were atheist then we got ourselves a liberal government.

Am I more worried about people telling people after they die God will judge them into heaven or hell or am I more worried about what the majority of athiests want more of, The government actually locking you up in a cage where you can get raped repeatedly? 

Then you dont go over the fact atheist have less kids so are less invested in the future.

You can probably go over it when you call in?

[fraytormenta]

Libertus, yes. What we see Stefan say in the video, however, is that the shift away in EU from theism is likely for the worse, at the very least in terms of how it affects public polity and the future of Western civilization. What I love about Christianity, or should I say what I love about Jesus Christ rather than the institutions of religions per se, is that he provides not only the path to best way to live but motivation to do it as service of gratitude for the benefits that he has already secured. Problem with an intelligent atheist is that, while knowing the right thing to do, has no rational reason to do that right thing in a moral pinch when self-interest is involved. It is just weighing of potential negative repercussions that becomes the measuring stick of morality in practice (not talking about theory).

 

Let me give a practical real-life example. I am in Ukraine right now visiting family. Last 12 months all the buzz around the country is about new police reforms. Former USSR block has some of the worst police corruption in the world - a plague on the people. The plan for reform was drafted by Saakashvilli based on his incredible positive similar reforms in Georgia. Most of our friends here say the nicest things about the "new cops" - everybody is excited about it and share stories how much better things are becoming because of new cops. How is the reform set? City by city, old cops are fired and have to re-apply by competing on the job market and passing tests (physical, etc.). Linch-pin of this process? Basically, most of who was old enough to live under USSR atheistic indoctrination is purged. Most of the new hires are like 17-19 year olds. Are they smarter and better qualified? Hardly. But they are a lot more religious and open, and the country is better off from it.

[Mister Mister]

I grew up in Moscow. Lessons from USSR: in order to push atheism on the rest of the population you have to mass murder priests, require atheism for gainful employment, teach atheism in schools from the youngest age, play constant propaganda against religion on all of state media, and ban religious books. When you do all that, only 50% of your population will secretly get baptized and only 70% will identify as religious when your thieving regime collapses. It really is a bad idea that, without physical coercion, stands little ground. Toss it. If an idea is tried and yielded disaster, toss it. If an idea has little utility, toss it. If you can't see benefit in your life from the idea or can't be sure that it makes a better world for your children, toss it.

 

I am a former atheist, a convinced Christian. I registered on this forum, Stefan, to talk to you - I think some of my life experiences, a little bit of life wisdom, and reason in conversation can help you decide to become a Christian when you have found yourself at this crossroad. I am willing to call in.

please do call in

[Libertus]

To me, this conversation is all a gigantic correlation / causation fallacy, clouded in group think. Atheism and statism correlate, theism and statism correlate a little bit less.

[ValueOfBrevity]

neeel: perhaps it does not make sense to your because the main premise of your argument is false.

 

the rest: information age has been great for Christianity. It has never spanned as far geographically or commanded as much influence on culture globally. In some areas there has been a decline of influence, but this is currently uncharacteristic of the global shifts. This is not just a sediment of stasis, it is a partial demonstration of its verity, value, and relevance.

The information age has been a detriment to all forms of ignorance. 

 

 

[ValueOfBrevity]

To me, this conversation is all a gigantic correlation / causation fallacy, clouded in group think. Atheism and statism correlate, theism and statism correlate a little bit less.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. 

The real issue is reliance and belief in the state. Our religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are not holding the gun in the room.

 

[Guest Gee]

I grew up in Germany and the government didn't do anything to "push" atheism on people.

 

Did it make home schooling illegal? 

[ObserveandReport]

Most atheists are leftists. Most leftists despise the philosophy of freedom.  Therefore atheists oppose libertarian ideas.

The point of the post is that despite there being overlap of the group of leftists and atheism, simply stating that fact neither implies nor explains a causal relationship. For instance, nearly all atheists wear pants, yet I would not ascribe "wearing pants" as a logical correlate of atheism. 

 

Most (American) religious folk/Christians are on the right. Most of those on right prefer limited and/or a smaller (than current) government. Therefore religious folks are compatible with, or at least indifferent to, libertarian ideas. 

That's my syllogism interpretation. 

While conservatives are theoretically for limited government, the point of the post was that many people who identify as both religious and conservative are in fact in favor of big expensive government wars. I imagine you find similar support of government interfering in the bedroom with sodomy laws, or the sovereignty of the body and drug laws, or sovereignty of the reproductive organs and contraception. 

[anatman]

As others have said, the argument here is not causative. There exists a significant overlap between nonreligious and collectivist beliefs, which is what the presentation is about: atheists are largely ignoring their aptitude to reject irrational authority when it comes to the State. Stef-chan recently put up a great conversation with an atheist, where he talked about how everyone has their own cherished beliefs that they refuse to put out in the sunlight of reason, because they are at some level aware they will shrivel up and die. In Stephen King's beautiful and illuminating book 'On Writing' (which is much more than just a guide to technique, but about managing creative energies), he says "kill your darlings, kill them, even when it breaks your egocentric heart, kill all your darlings". 

 

I struggled to kill my darlings through an examination of HBD (human biodiversity) in which I desperately wanted to believe, (ironically) as a life sciences lecturer that anyone can learn anything, given enough training. It was my opinion that some people may take longer than others, or have particularly difficult learning styles, but that any physiologically normal person could rise to the highest levels of achievement in any field if they had the motivation. I went kicking and screaming. I rebutted IQ to my students many times in the past -- after all, IQ only measures ONE kind of intelligence, right? No. IQ is strongly linked to achievement and ability to handle complex information of all types, and is irrefutably linked to G, which is more like a processor clock speed than I had hoped.

 

Why bring up IQ? In this thread, several people like ObserveAndReport brought up a valid point: the State-leaning tendencies of the religious: "big expensive government wars, interfering in the bedroom, sovereignty of body". But we know there is some organization of theism along the IQ spectrum -- we know especially low IQ people aren't really about examining their assumptions and sources of evidence. They are likely to echo what's socially acceptable at large. It's a good reproductive strategy.

 

The atheist subpopulation is much more performant. The disparity between this ability to throw themselves onto the altar of critical examination for God, and complete disinterest when it comes to a much less abstract State is what this is all about. It makes them much more cowardly, in my opinion -- having the ability but not the will.

[ObserveandReport]

The atheist subpopulation is much more performant. The disparity between this ability to throw themselves onto the altar of critical examination for God, and complete disinterest when it comes to a much less abstract State is what this is all about. It makes them much more cowardly, in my opinion -- having the ability but not the will.

I dig the name. Buddhist concept of no-self or bundled self right? On this point, I thinking chalking it up to cowardice is a bit hasty. Good questions with difficult to measure answers might be "how does state indoctrination vs. religious indoctrination measure in ubiquity and intensity?" "To what extent are proponents of atheism vs. proponents of Libertarianism actively spreading their respective gospels?" "What social mechanisms might hinder, or be more prohibitive for criticizing the state vs. religion?" And a host of others I am undoubtedly missing. Not sure if it's of note, but I shed religion first. What about the rest of you?

[WasatchMan]

I can see that here you're using the equivalent of the "Not all women" argument. Not all women are crazy feminist monsters. Not all Muslims are crazy terrorists. And so on. In my opinion, Stefan is not "throwing the baby out with the bath water". That would be using a collectivist way of thinking and anyone who appreciates the conservative values knows better than being a collectivist and favors individualism and meritocracy instead.

 

I am in no way making a "not all" argument. I am making the argument that you don't throw out a philosophical idea because of other people have who claim to believe it also have other beliefs that contradict it.  The philosophical ideas behind atheism have no intellectual content that would make you become a statist, and therefore just because more atheists happen to be statists there is no reason to say you are "wrong about atheism".  You could say you are disappointed that people are so illogical, so broken (possibly due their upbringing in a religious and superstitious dominated culture) that they can claim atheism to be true and turn around and kiss the ring of the state, but this has no bearing on atheism the idea.

 

Feminism is only and specifically the idea that is for equal rights for woman, it has no intellectual or philosophical content that would lead one to anything else 

 

 

Exactly, this is why if you study the arguments being made around this issue you will hear people repeatedly say that they are against third wave feminists.  They talk about the actions of people who self identify as feminist, not feminism in general.  I hear people who make careers out of tearing apart feminists say they agree with the dictionary definition of feminism. Also, feminism does have epistemological content that would lead someone towards gender supremacy because it focuses on a specific gender - atheism does not have this double standard, or internal contradiction, built into its definition.

 

"The dramatic fall in Christianity to me indicates how the Information Age has destroyed the credibility of Christianity by shining light on its irrationality and dogma.  However, as religion has disappeared from being the dominant cultural force, the only pre-packaged, ready to assimilate, ideology around to catch the rebels has been Marxism."

 

So people are leaving Christianity because it is irrational and dogmatic, but they are fleeing to Marxism which is equally irrational and dogmatic. I'm not sure how that doesn't contradict your thesis that it was a lack of credibility demonstrated in Christianity that led people to become atheists. At least since Christianity has been on the decline in the period you cited, the state has grown larger and more encompassing of society. I'm not sure how statism has displayed more credibility than Christianity in the past 20 years. The information age is also alongside the age of state education, Prussian in its brutality and disrespect for autonomy and self thinking, and Soviet in its willingness to drug or imprison those who do not conform.

 

I don't know if you missed the point, but I am making an argument against the statism vs. religion false dichotomy that was presented. I hate the state. I hate Marixism. I hate religion. I am making the argument that they both are not true and it is up to people who do accept reason, logic, and have a dedication to truth to provide the better and correct path - philosophy.  I say, do not put your hands on the scale for the side of religion or the side of the state, for both are anti-philosophical ideologies - put all your weight on the path of truth and reason for that is the only path that can unchain humanity.

 

I checked out the sources, and this is what I found:

 

Thanks for those statistics.  It is pretty hard for anyone to continue to claim that religion is anti-state, let alone some beacon of light fighting back the tide of the state from the dark meddling atheists who make up 3.1% of the demographic but if only they were gone the democratically represented state would just dissolve, after knowing this.  Religion just uses the state in a different way.  Without the state, religion would be the State.

[Libertus]

Exactly. Religion is only concerned with people's freedom from the state insofar as the state takes power that in their eyes, belongs to their "god". Religion sounds reasonable as long as it isn't in power. If you want to know how free society becomes once religious people get their say, have a look at IS.

[Mister Mister]

Exactly. Religion is only concerned with people's freedom from the state insofar as the state takes power that in their eyes, belongs to their "god". Religion sounds reasonable as long as it isn't in power. If you want to know how free society becomes once religious people get their say, have a look at IS.

??? what does IS have to do with a free society?  It is entirely an effect of statism

[Stargatemunky]

"That would be using a collectivist way of thinking and anyone who appreciates the conservative values knows better than being a collectivist and favours individualism and meritocracy instead."

I see no definition of liberalism or conservatism that isolates collectivism as being unique to one or the other.

 

Collectivism is a psychological trait of humans and has no bearing on which politics you choose to believe in.

 

Equally as others have pointed out. By not qualifying the statement and claiming it's unique to liberalism or atheism, you're effectively stating Stefan believes atheism to be all and everything to do with liberalism and thus is using the same fallacy you're accusing others of.

 

"Atheism gained momentum with the expansion of communist ideals even before the Sixties"

 

Atheism gained momentum in the Greek era around Epicurus's time when he tried to address the issue of mortality and the moral argument for the belief in God/gods. It's been around a lot longer than Stalinist communism which was a government enforced joining of church and state.

 

I don't see many if ANY well known atheists these days supporting the idea that the government should have explicit control of church and state. Even in the UK where the church is integrated through tradition there is nowhere near that level of control.

 

Again it's rather disappointing people use the Stalinist examples as if that is what is happening today. Atheism exists primarily in the world today because of the Enlightenment. It has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with the Freethinkers like Thomas Paine.

Stalinism was instigated to achieve political control by  Stalins sheer paranoia over his need to feel in power.

You can see that quite clearly from the fact that modern day atheism promotes critical and independent thought as much as it does the dictionary definition of "non-belief in a deity" that it has nothing to do with that culturally or politically.

 

If you don't know what the enlightenment is then you should probably look that up before you consider carrying on with the communist/atheist rhetoric.

[Anuojat]

I am an atheist. Atheism is to me bit baffling unless used in differasnt manner.

 

Because DEFAULT POSITION/LACK OF KNOWLEGE = ISM. I like saying innocent until proven guilty is an ism. Instead of a fact.

 

May my fellow rationa minded strike me down if i made mistake here. I think its right but i also feel uneasy...

[Libertus]

??? what does IS have to do with a free society?  It is entirely an effect of statism

 

You literally got the opposite from what I was saying. Should I have used quotes? Let me try and make my point more clear.

 

If you want to know how "free" society becomes once religious people get their say, have a look at IS.

 

IS and other god-state-constructs is what happens when religious people become the majority and then use the state to shape society the way it pleases their "god". The friendly and moderate religious people, like the pope who says cute and popular things is what we see when religion has very little power. The churches and other institutions will quickly change their tune once they get even a little bit of power back. Just look at the Middle East.

 

Because DEFAULT POSITION/LACK OF KNOWLEGE = ISM. I like saying innocent until proven guilty is an ism.

 

Since you were asking for feedback: please don't use "ISM" as a noun, i.e. as if the suffix alone means something. It makes zero sense to do so. Can you make your point in a different way?

[shirgall]

If I may be permitted to interpret Anuojat's statement, Atheism is not believing the big lie of heaven. Stefan's video says it is common that Atheists--while rejecting the Big Lie of religion--accept a worse Big Lie, belief in the omnibenevolent power of the state. The default position may be an innoculation against religion, but it is an insufficient innoculation against the state. Empirically states exist and wield tremendous power. It is much harder to be skeptical of the claim that the state is necessary for the safety of eggs and offspring.

[Mister Mister]

You literally got the opposite from what I was saying. Should I have used quotes? Let me try and make my point more clear.

 

 

IS and other god-state-constructs is what happens when religious people become the majority and then use the state to shape society the way it pleases their "god". The friendly and moderate religious people, like the pope who says cute and popular things is what we see when religion has very little power. The churches and other institutions will quickly change their tune once they get even a little bit of power back. Just look at the Middle East

Sorry if I misunderstood.  I'm not sure I accept your qualification though.  The majority of the US for most of it's early history was Protestant Christian, yet we had a Separation of Church and State.  IS, on the other hand, is not a majority as I understand, they are just the most aggressive, dedicated, and well-armed group in the region.

[rosencrantz]

The statement that Christianity values freedom more than Atheism is a bit absurd when you have a look on how Western Christian elites behaved throughout history. They were just as bad as the kings and queens of their time and there is no indication that any of them believed in what the Bible said. 
When Western Rome fell, the bishops took over the role of government from the Roman magistrates, doing more or less the same. When the Merovingians took over Western Europe, the bishops and the Pope more or less controlled them by making them believe they had superpowers given to them from god. 
During the Medieval Ages, they were involved in plots and subterfuge that makes Game of Thrones look like a docu from a kindergarten (the series Borgia is somewhat accurate in showing a typical Renaissance pope). 
After the refomration, the situation got much worse for people living in Protestant countries. The bishops used the power of the state to make people go to church and be good Christians. 
So where is this inherent love for freedom in Christianity? Looking at history I find the opposite, over and over again.
 

[fraytormenta]

rosencrantz, your survey of history seems selective to me. I don't see how things got worse for people in protestant countries - those became leading industrial nations that pioneered widely implementing concepts that we know today as libretarianism. The main protestant distinctive is belief in universal priesthood of every believer that in effect leveled the authority field.

[ValueOfBrevity]

Stefan's video says it is common that Atheists--while rejecting the Big Lie of religion--accept a worse Big Lie, belief in the omnibenevolent power of the state. The default position may be an innoculation against religion, but it is an insufficient innoculation against the state. Empirically states exist and wield tremendous power. It is much harder to be skeptical of the claim that the state is necessary for the safety of eggs and offspring.

A rather concise explanation of the video 

[Libertus]

The majority of the US for most of it's early history was Protestant Christian, yet we had a Separation of Church and State.  IS, on the other hand, is not a majority as I understand, they are just the most aggressive, dedicated, and well-armed group in the region.

 

So you're saying, that.... correlation does not equal causation? I agree! Let alone a weak correlation...

[Anuojat]

 

Since you were asking for feedback: please don't use "ISM" as a noun, i.e. as if the suffix alone means something. It makes zero sense to do so. Can you make your point in a different way?

 

Ah darn it. I made mistake while writing What i should and emant to say was:

 

"Because DEFAULT POSITION/LACK OF KNOWLEGE (such as lack of belief in god) = ISM, IS like saying innocent until proven guilty is an ism. Instead of a fact."

 

So thanks for replying Libertus!

If I may be permitted to interpret Anuojat's statement, Atheism is not believing the big lie of heaven. Stefan's video says it is common that Atheists--while rejecting the Big Lie of religion--accept a worse Big Lie, belief in the omnibenevolent power of the state. The default position may be an innoculation against religion, but it is an insufficient innoculation against the state. Empirically states exist and wield tremendous power. It is much harder to be skeptical of the claim that the state is necessary for the safety of eggs and offspring.

 

I... hmmm. What i was trying to point out that a default position cannot be an "ism" of any kind. And thus is it inaccurate to talk about "atheism". And since you never said atheism in your description of the issue id say that your comment would be good in regard to accuracy/correct language.

[kailuabear]

I am an atheist.  I am not a statist.  I am a conservative.   

 

( I am also a small potatoes subscriber, ( $10 a month), and new to The Board.  I find it interesting that some of the most opinionated, don't appear to be  donors...?)

[shirgall]

I am an atheist.  I am not a statist.  I am a conservative.   

 

( I am also a small potatoes subscriber, ( $10 a month), and new to The Board.  I find it interesting that some of the most opinionated, don't appear to be  donors...?)

 

There is more than one way to contribute, as is often said on the show, "like, share, and subscribe".