Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

That said, I think Atheists would argue that (at its best)it seeks to achieve(amongst other things) a world view based on evidence

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On a day when UK atheists are whining about David Cameron calling this a Christian country I would like to ask, specifically what atheism as a philosophy, as a belief-system, as a principle has actually done that is positive, good, productive and beneficial in and for this world. I don't mean individual atheists, but atheism as a driving force - as opposed to Christianity as a driving force. What is atheism actually FOR? What has it inspired? What cultural progress has been made in the name of atheism? What sacrifices have been made, what beauty has been created, what energy has been released where atheism has been credited as the driving force?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

That said, I think Atheists would argue that (at its best)it seeks to achieve(amongst other things) a world view based on evidence

---

It's own fabricated evidence. According to its own presuppositions: usually those of scientific materialism.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
. . . specifically what atheism as a philosophy, as a belief-system, as a principle has actually done that is positive, good, productive and beneficial in and for this world. I don't mean individual atheists, but atheism as a driving force - as opposed to Christianity as a driving force.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Secular democracy; questioning of religious norms and institutions; secular bills of rights; freedom for all of all religions and none. I am a Christian but can still appreciate all those things

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:
Fabricated evidence? Really? Could you give some examples where evidence has been fabricated (as opposed to being interpreted in a different way).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

Getting rid of the crap that prevents us focussing on what is actually important; this world, this universe, and our fellow human beings. We aren't praying to cure diseases any more, wasting our time and actively making those being prayed for edgier. We're curing diseases.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Secular democracy; questioning of religious norms and institutions; secular bills of rights; freedom for all of all religions and none.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
you aren't pouring your energy into building ridiculously ornate churches, and into PCC meetings).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

The abolition of slavery... Christians either began or were heavily involved in.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
A big part of the development of understanding our world and diseases came from educated priests that were amazed at the glory that the Lord had created and sought to examine it. The Catholic priest that formulated the big bang theory is but one example.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
How does a Catholic Big Bang differ from a Protestant one? Or a Jewish one?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:

quote:

---

The abolition of slavery... Christians either began or were heavily involved in.

---

Indeed. It only took about 18 centuries for Christianity to decide it was not very nice. And even then there were Bible quoting Christians on the other side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
A big part of the development of understanding our world and diseases came from educated priests that were amazed at the glory that the Lord had created and sought to examine it. The Catholic priest that formulated the big bang theory is but one example.

---

I'm not convinced this is a defining criterion. Are you arguing that Big Bang cosmology would be significantly different if someone like Edwin Hubble (a not particularly devout, only nominally Christian layman) had managed to publish his results before Georges Lemaître's much less well supported speculations? How does a Catholic Big Bang differ from a Protestant one? Or a Jewish one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

I find it difficult to see why Christians get so heated about the general run of atheists. It may be one thing to attempt to convert an atheist to your POV, but he is under no obligation to believe what you do. Also, that atheist has a right not to be harassed by you into whatever belief you may have.

Getting upset about someone's differing belief is your problem, not that other person's. get over it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I find it difficult to see why Christians get so heated about the general run of atheists. It may be one thing to attempt to convert an atheist to your POV, but he is under no obligation to believe what you do. Also, that atheist has a right not to be harassed by you into whatever belief you may have.

---

quote:

---

The study of what was going on with atheism before the mid-seventeenth century is not, and cannot be, the study of actual atheists. There are none for us to study. There may have been some, there may not, but in a period when saying “I think there is no God” led pretty directly to arrest and execution, no one said it. No one wrote it. If anyone thought it, not even private letters can confirm.

<snip>

I often compare late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century atheism to late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century homosexuality: there were circles in which one could let it be an open secret that one was an [atheist/homosexual] and it would be okay so long as one didn’t ruffle too many feathers or say anything in public or in front of civic authorities. One was always at risk of prosecution, and if one wanted to be safe and respected one kept it carefully hidden (as Diderot hid his atheist works), but there was enough sympathy within the apparatus of power that one could write of one’s [atheism/homosexuality] in private letters, and even hint at it in public works, and more often than not be safe. The pre-seventeenth-century atheist enjoyed no such safety, so not even in Renaissance private correspondence (where talk of homosexuality is quite commonplace) do we see even the most timid hand raised when the historian calls back: “Is anybody there an atheist? Anybody? Machiavelli?”

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Science does seem to be rather good at discovering cures for diseases, building better devices for easing labor, predicting possible disasters, helping us find out what is (how big is the universe, how old, why the diversity of life, etc).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Science alone isn't a life stance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
. . . specifically what atheism as a philosophy, as a belief-system, as a principle has actually done that is positive, good, productive and beneficial in and for this world. I don't mean individual atheists, but atheism as a driving force - as opposed to Christianity as a driving force.

---

This last bit seems incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to parse. How do you separate individual accomplishment from underlying philosophy? For example, are most of the great strides made in physics in the early twentieth century really "Jüdische Physik", as a certain political movement would have it? Or can we conclude that the relatively non-observant status of many of the scientists involved means that the "driving force" was something else? And if general relativity and quantum mechanics are inherently "Jewish", does that imply that non-Jews necessarily have an inferior understanding of these fields?

To take a Christian example, Johann Sebastian Bach is noted for working Christian themes into his compositions. Does this make Christianity the "driving force" of his efforts, to the extent that we can confidently claim that if Bach had been raised as a Muslim or a Taoist that he'd have been tone deaf and had no interest in musical composition? Or is genius its own "driving force" that compels creative effort regardless of context?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
A big part of the development of understanding our world and diseases came from educated priests that were amazed at the glory that the Lord had created and sought to examine it. The Catholic priest that formulated the big bang theory is but one example.

---

I'm not convinced this is a defining criterion. Are you arguing that Big Bang cosmology would be significantly different if someone like Edwin Hubble (a not particularly devout, only nominally Christian layman) had managed to publish his results before Georges Lemaître's much less well supported speculations? How does a Catholic Big Bang differ from a Protestant one? Or a Jewish one?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Evensong - I'm not under the impression that the things I mentioned are exclusively atheist phenomenons, however many atheists have contributed to them. Yes, the abolitionist movement in England was largely Christian-based, but most things were then - including the anti-abolitionist movement!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Science does seem to be rather good at discovering cures for diseases, building better devices for easing labor, predicting possible disasters, helping us find out what is (how big is the universe, how old, why the diversity of life, etc).

---

All very true, but what has this to do with atheism? There are several scientists aboard this very Ship who profess Christianity (and others no doubt who do not). Science, as an endeavor, seeks to pose and answer questions on the basis of specific kinds of evidence. Atheism isn’t an endeavor at all (except for that group of atheists who seek converts to their view).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not convinced this is a defining criterion. Are you arguing that Big Bang cosmology would be significantly different if someone like Edwin Hubble (a not particularly devout, only nominally Christian layman) had managed to publish his results before Georges Lemaître's much less well supported speculations? How does a Catholic Big Bang differ from a Protestant one? Or a Jewish one?

---

The point was (again - contra much of the historical ignorance spouted above) that clergy and theists were a big part of the scientific revolution.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
ISTM that we have the usual painting of groups as homogeneous "thems".

Some evangelicals are extremely helpful to the poor and disenfranchised; others are opposed to helping the poor at all, because "it is all their fault anyway".

Some Jews do science; some Jews do not. Some Christians do science; some do not. Some Christians are literalists; some (most) are not.

Similarly, some atheists are combative anti-religionists; some just don't see why people make a fuss about something the atheists don't actually believe in.

I find it difficult to see why Christians get so heated about the general run of atheists. It may be one thing to attempt to convert an atheist to your POV, but he is under no obligation to believe what you do. Also, that atheist has a right not to be harassed by you into whatever belief you may have.

Getting upset about someone's differing belief is your problem, not that other person's. get over it.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How can a lack of something be a driving force?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

Who says Atheism can't form communities? I find that statement quite astounding. I would like to see your evidence.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Evensong - I'm not under the impression that the things I mentioned are exclusively atheist phenomenons, however many atheists have contributed to them. Yes, the abolitionist movement in England was largely Christian-based, but most things were then - including the anti-abolitionist movement!

---

Well why mention your points then? This is a thread about the contribution of atheism to society.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... it's a matter of high profile cultural icons - Tatchell (has he been investigated yet?), Dawkins, Minchin, Toynbee, etc, etc, who openly and with hostile intent, try to diminish the presence and validity of Christian faith and culture within British society.

---

quote:

---

Atheism cannot even form communities; how can it benefit a whole society?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

Who says Atheism can't form communities? I find that statement quite astounding. I would like to see your evidence.

---

And where are they?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I would love to see what atheisjm might do, it having no driving force and being merely a protest voice against belief and in favour of nothing other than self-contained individualism. Atheism cannot even form communities; how can it benefit a whole society?

---

But why should bands of atheists (for want of a better collective noun) get together and decide to do good based on their atheism? If it's defined as a lack of belief in God. Especially if the lack of belief in God isn't a big deal, as it isn't for any of the atheists I know.

"So, folks. Here we are today, non-believers in God. Let's make the world a better place. I think we should set up a food bank for the local poor."
"No, I think we should look to support the local school's gardening project."
"No, no, I think we should do some work to clear the canal of rubbish."
"No, no, no, I think we should be protesting to the government about their cuts to welfare."

[My imaginary band of atheists read the Guardian. ]

So I characterise, but you see what I mean. People may want to do good things for society (and not all people do, at least not in the way that I might define it). They have limited time to do the things they want to do. Why on earth should they set up another group, based on a shared characteristic most of them don't care about, to do things which may or may not be relevant to their beliefs of lack of them, when there are perfectly good organisations already doing those things, which they can join?

I'm left handed. It's not something that makes it into conversation much, unless I'm discussing tin openers. Why would I form a group of left handed people to do Good Works?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
An additional thought following on from what Evensong was saying about science and churchmen. I'm no expert in the history of science, but could it be the case that, as well as or instead of God being the inspiration, the church-run institutions were where the money to conduct research was?

I'm thinking of the development of UCL in London http://www.ucl.ac.uk/about-ucl which I think was the first university which did not require students to declare a Christian faith. I could well be wrong about that though.

Laws, similarly. When the issue of Christian contribution was being shoutily debated on the Today programme, Evan Harris pointed out that of course laws were made by (at least nominal) Christians, as one wasn't allowed to be an MP if one were not a declared Christian.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You may not have realised why I wrote the OP: HERE

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You may not have realised why I wrote the OP: HERE

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You may not have realised why I wrote the OP: HERE

---

But I as a Christian agree with much of what the atheists and humanists are saying there. Do you think I am 'whining'? I see no whining, just a recognition that the UK is now largely non-religious.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:

I'm thinking of the development of UCL in London http://www.ucl.ac.uk/about-ucl which I think was the first university which did not require students to declare a Christian faith. I could well be wrong about that though.

---

I think Bentham was an atheist, wasn't he? He was certainly critical of many established views and traditions, and advocated the decriminalization of homosexuality, and called natural law 'nonsense on stilts'. I was at UCL for quite a while - have you seen his body there? He didn't actually found it, but supported it, partly because of its non-Christian beginnings.

---

Yes I think he was. I can't now find evidence online to support the idea that UCL was the first university not to require students to be of Christian faith, but t'Wiki does state that it was set up as an alternative to the religious Oxford & Cambridge. And that there was significant opposition from the Church of England (among others) to its establishment, which prevented the institution getting its Royal Charter in order to allow them to award degrees.

I've never seen Bentham, no. But then I was a KCL student....