Atheism, Religion and Tolerance

Thank you for this- sincerely!

here is the crux of the matter for me. evil men will always find ways for their ends and justification for their means. that does not make the ways and justifications evil, per se.

if i have a hammer and use it to drive a nail or i swing 8it at a person, is the hammer evil? or is the one doing the swinging evil?

so with religion. it can be a great force for good. someone above listed many supposedly atheistic people who have contributed to the greater good. i posit that the list of the religious who have made similar significant positive contributions to society would be just as large. i will not at this time make a list. i should not have to.

the thing is- there are evil men. there are evil women. there are evil people.

and they will use what they can to justify their actions.

even religion.

even a lack of religion.

Dangit... AudioDad, don't blab about the handshake!

I never said I didn't accept that it is just as true of atheists.

I don't think I've said anywhere that the vast majority of atheists are horrible people who are just out to make the lives of religious people miserable. I haven't said it because I don't believe it.

I think that among atheists, rather like among Christians and other religious people, there are those who intentionally set out to cause harm to others, but they do not represent the majority. It is a minority of Christians who intentionally abuse Scripture to inflict terrible acts on others. It is not the majority. Likewise, I feel quite certain it is a minority of atheists who intentionally do violence to others who do not share their views, although I realize that to speak of atheism as a particular set of 'views' is something of a misnomer in itself. Again, it is not the majority.

When it comes right down to it, I believe one of the most potentially dangerous things out there is power, be it financial, political, social, or anything else. People with power have the capacity to do great good, but all too often they use their power for evil. Political power certainly lends itself to this sort of thing. It doesn't matter what creed people adhere to or even if they adhere to no creed at all. There's a reason for the saying, "Power corrupts." It just does. It doesn't matter who has it. Everyone is susceptible to the seductive charms of power. At bottom, it is selfishness that drives the corruption and no one is immune to selfishness.

...Sunday being my studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that He made the world, and governed it by His providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter.

A final note on Stalin:

While Stalin professed atheism, it's interesting to note the parallels between his actions and those of organized religion, to wit: he conducted an inquisition, rooted out and killed or exiled those he considered to be heretics, installed himself as unquestioned and absolute ruler, and built an image of himself as the source of all blessings and grace, and the ultimate arbiter of truth and justice. He capitalized on the ignorance and desperation of his populace, who for generations had been taught that the Tsar was the equivalent of the Pope: a representative of the divine made flesh, with the power to speak for God. Is it any wonder a graduate of the seminary like Joseph Stalin saw a country ripe for conquest?

. . . Secondly, horrible people do horrible things whether religious or not. Islamic terrorists commit atrocities in the name of their god. There were the crusades, Spanish Inquisition. And yes, atheists who mass murdered. They all have one thing in common, they're sociopaths. Some sociopaths justify their actions through their "faith" while others justify what they do as if it's for the common good. They're all equally full of it and equally evil.

Firstly, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were not atheists. They were, in fact, both Christian.

Franklin:


Jefferson is harder to nail down, but while atheists like claim he's an atheist just because he's not overly religious, the latter does not prove the former. However it's hard to believe that the author of the Declaration of Independence if an atheist would pepper the document with capitalized terms like "God" and "Creator". To suggest that an atheist would pen such terms when forming a secular government is just disingenuous.



Secondly, horrible people do horrible things whether religious or not. Islamic terrorists commit atrocities in the name of their god. There were the crusades, Spanish Inquisition. And yes, atheists who mass murdered. They all have one thing in common, they're sociopaths. Some sociopaths justify their actions through their "faith" while others justify what they do as if it's for the common good. They're all equally full of it and equally evil.

Doesn't this suggest that some atheists are just as capable as some religious people of co-opting religious symbolism to obtain and/or further their own ends? If it's wrong for religious people to distort their own texts and beliefs systems to cause harm to others, it surely must be just as wrong for people who don't even believe in those systems and symbolism to use them to do the same.

Is it possible that religion (most religions anyway) with it's hierarchical structure and symbolism is appealing to people in positions of political power? Is it tempting for political leaders, even if they may be atheists, to use a quasi-religious model on which to build and wield their power because it is something with which the vast majority of people are familiar? I realize I'm probably adding more fuel to the 'People need religion because they are irrational, afraid, and need comfort" argument that has been suggested by some, but could it be that an atheist political leader who wanted to eradicate organized religion might attempt to set up a religion unto themselves in order to persuade the masses to remain loyal? If one (speaking generally) is going to argue that people "need religion," wouldn't it make sense to provide them with something then that at least resembles religion in order to seduce them into thinking that what's going on is somehow okay?

Jefferson and Franklin were deists, not theists. Another word for 'not theists' is: a-theists.