"Atheists and believers are daggers drawn, each accusing the other of fundamentalism. This week the Maze asks if we would be better off without Religion?"

Is it just me or does that imply a really, really flawed interpretation of atheism?

This week the Maze asks if we would be better off without Religion

Who is this "we" they are talking about?

While I appreciate a hypothetical as much as the next guy or gal, I consistently get the impression from atheists and theists both that their arguments will culminate with their views being forced on society for its own good. (Most would point out that Christianity has already done this, but this is no justification. Forcing new ideas on society usually leads to the kind of bloodshed and unpleasantness I would like to think is unneccessary.)

"Would society be better off without Religion?" is a legitimate question, but I worry about people's desire to go further, and create upheaval so they can try and force society to be "better off".

A polarizing example of this kind of thinking is the "anti hate speech" laws in places like Germany.

The rule of law should govern actions, not thoughts and philosophies, even if those thoughts and philosophies (including certain popular religions) are deemed harmful.

That said, people should not relent in asking these sorts of questions, "if we would be better off without Religion"

However, beware the implication that when the answer is "yes", that drastic measures are in order.

Do you agree with Hitler??" Just answer the question- do you agree with Hitler?"

Who would have thought that a guy with a British accent could pull an O'Riley? Then again, the other fellow was being rather thick as well. He should have said, "Well, that is a laughably immature way to frame a question, but I do believe that religion should be kept out of the public square," rather than turning a complete 180 without justification and then flipping around again to avoid the word "Hitler"

This was handled poorly by both interviewer and interviewee

Then again, the other fellow was being rather thick as well. He should have said, "Well, that is a laughably immature way to frame a question..."

Or he could have invoked Godwin's Law and won the argument by default.

It seems to me that they didn't rally discuss what role religion should take in politics...just whether a politician should invoke God's name or not.

Public policy based on religious doctrine could potentially ignore the social, scientific/medical, products of the decisions made, stem cells for example.

Rational debate, without the fear of being smote by a superhero in space or lynched by your electorate for going against the "word", in my opinion, would at least try to incorporate all sides of an issue.

Abortion, just to use on example, is a case where many considerations come into play. Medical, social, moral (that word is getting cheaper and cheaper). For the most part, a religious state would be alomst predisposed to disallow abortion. They would ignore all the abolutely vital considerations every individual must make when faced with such a serious choice or necessity.

It's the very fact that modern western states are secular that there is such open debate about many subjects, including religion.

I'm curious whether the religious people on the panel thought that the state should adpot an official religion (theirs naturally).

What would the outcome of that decision be I wonder?

My favourite answer to Christians who accuse me of fundamental atheism?

What's the fundamentals about atheism?

Fundamental Christianity fundamentalism may be described as a slavish or blind belief that the Bible is the word of God and is totally true.

But what about atheism?

I've never heard the term fundamental atheism. I suspect they may be confusing the word fundamental with devout.

If one were so devoted to their beliefs that they designed, built and maintained a website centered on those beliefs, I think it would be fair to call them devout in their belief.

In your case, that belief would be that there is no god(s). No?

I hear words like fundamentalist, militant and extremist used about atheism all the time. It makes no sense, of course...

Christians are like football fans. Catholics, baptists, Lutherans -- they're like Raiders, 49ers and Cowboy supporters... And Muslims are like basketball fans. And when the Raiders and 49er fans -- and the Lakers and Clipper fans aren't doing the same -- it's only because they've teamed up to kill each others, fighting about which sport is the bestest (and every now and then you got hockey fans getting involved in the mess also)...

Then, the atheists show up -- and they don't care about any sports... Whoa!

It's like a Raider fan who spends all his time and money on supporting his team (and walks door to door to try convince other people to become Raider fans), running into a dude who doesn't care about the Raiders, or about football, or about watching sport at all -- not football, not baseball, not hockey, tennis, golfing, soccer, snooker, cricket, not synchronized swimming -- hell, not even freakin' bowling, man! -- What a goddamn fundamentalist!!!

Atheism cannot be fundementalist; cannot be militant; cannot be extreme. It is the middle ground. It is reason.

fundamentalist atheism. what bunch of double speak, to make atheism seems as whacked as believing the tamest of notions in the bible. Noah's ark, adam and eve, nice fairy tales, but that is simply nuts. But saying so, makes you a "militant"

and if atheism could described as "fundamentalist atheism.", what does that mean? That there are different degrees of holding no belief in a god?

while there clearly different sects and cults of christianity and idol worship, lack of belief in those things is simply that. I think theist are simply threaten into stupidity when faced with some who isn't afraid to say they dont believe.

Thus a non "fundamentalist atheist" must be someone who simply keeps their mouth shut and opinion to themselves. They are invisible and not heard. No threat are they. No boats rocked and the the dreamy blanket of fairy tales and men in the sky can go on unabated.

I think one of the most important parts of this discussion was the emphasis on rational thought and reason when putting things into the public square, an emphasis made by one of the religious fellows of all people (Prof. Roger Trig). It seems to me that a lot of this religious talk is irrelevant so long as the assertion is rationally acceptable. If a religious politician asserts that racism is wrong, does the fact that he gained this opinion through religious teachings really matter? I suppose, though, that if an assertion can be reached just as well (or perhaps more easily) without the influence of religion then what good is religion anyway?

Don't mind me. I'm just thinking "out loud".

I think it would be fair to classify Pol Pot, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong as militant atheists. They didn't simply not believe in god(s), they killed millions of people who did and precisely because they did.

Now before you all get your panties in a bunch, it is also true that millions of people have been killed in the name of God.

I think it would be fair to classify Pol Pot, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong as militant atheists. They didn't simply not believe in god(s), they killed millions of people who did and precisely because they did.

No, they were militant Communists.

While these people could be defined as "atheists" they were still fanatically devoted to a certain ideology (Communism). And the reason they killed people was never because the victims were theists, but mainly because they were seen as un-Communist.

Atheism is simply the unbelief in certain nonsense. Atheism itself doesn't deny or run counter to modern morality or basic human decency. The ideologies of Pol Pot, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, while not religious ideologies in the strictest meaning of the word, did.

As a follow-up to my previous post, that is not to say that Atheism will never have (or has never had) a violent proponent. However, Atheism itself is not a type of thinking that inherently demands that others have it forced on them (as opposed to Communism or Christianity).

However, anyone can become "militant" about something if they are crazy enough.

Thanks Frenetic,

I agree that Communism is the ideology that prompted the mass killing.

What I disagree with you about is that because atheism is a requirement of a communist society, people who believed that God was the ultimate authority (not the state) were seen as a threat to the state and therefore exterminated.

We love to blame isms rather than blaming our seemingly insatiable desire to hold power over others. To many people, power is a path to immortality. From their perspective, Pol Pot, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedung achieved their goal of immortality or we wouldn't be talking about them today.

people who believed that God was the ultimate authority (not the state) were seen as a threat to the state and therefore exterminated.

I fail to see what the practice of exterminating groups of people whose ideology conflicts with that of a totalitarian state, has to do with the question of emergent "militant atheism". Perhaps I misunderstand what you are getting at.

On this point:

We love to blame isms rather than blaming our seemingly insatiable desire to hold power over others.

I definitely agree that this is a relevant issue, and I was getting at this in my post at the top of the thread: "people should not relent in asking 'if we would be better off without Religion' ... However, beware the implication that when the answer is 'yes', that drastic measures are in order."

I guess my point is that we have historical examples of what happens when the answer is 'yes'