Does atheism "cure" the supposed ills of religion?

[Paul of Tarsus]

We've all heard the horror stories preached by atheists (or at least I've heard them) regarding the presumed ill effects of religious belief. We are told that Christians and other theists tend to be intolerant, narrow-minded, fanatical, often immoral, and irrational. And atheism, if not the cure for these ills, is "the 911 call." It's a step in the right direction toward truth and logic and laying to rest all those religious beliefs that have led to so much injustice and cruelty.

Is it true that atheism cures the supposed ills of religion?

I must admit that at one time I thought it was. However, after many debates with atheists, I'm not so sure anymore. I've seen a LOT of muddled thinking among atheists in those discussions not to mention intolerance for opposing viewpoints. Fanaticism and irrationality apparently are not the unique traits of the religious.

[brunumb]

When one is not convinced that any gods exist, one is an atheist.

That's a newer definition that's popular among many atheists nowadays. A more "traditional" definition is that an atheist is a person who actively denies that God exists.

The "traditional" definition was undoubtedly supplied by theists. It always amuses me that theists presume to tell atheists exactly what they do and do not believe. All that aside, how is it in any way relevant anyway?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #11]

I think Problem of Evil is also a problem for Atheism. If they don't make the World better, why not go with the morality of Golden Rule (of sane people) and such?

Eventually, it's the character of belief system that attracts people as followers. You don't fool people from it! No, Atheism does not cure anything. Even then, it's actually not true!

[bluegreenearth]

I'm not sure what your point is. If you are saying that religion is no cure for the presumed ills of atheism, then you might be right, but that's not the issue. Is it true that atheism cures the supposed ills of religion?

I rewrote your post to demonstrate that if an atheist had suggested something similar to what you have suggested, the potential responses a theist might have provided to the atheist would have helped you anticipate some of the responses you've received from atheists in this thread.

[Paul of Tarsus]

I think Problem of Evil is also a problem for Atheism. If they don't make the World better, why not go with the morality of Golden Rule (of sane people) and such?

Many atheists no doubt do employ the golden rule. It's important to point out that the golden rule did not originate with the Bible, and some people think that the golden rule, at least as an ideal, is as old as humanity is and common among all people. Nevertheless, one must wonder if atheists are free to disregard the miraculous claims of religion, then are they free to disregard the golden rule as popularized by religion.

Eventually, it's the character of belief system that attracts people as followers. You don't fool people from it!

I must disagree with you here. People may be attracted to religion for reasons other than its morality, and people can definitely be fooled by religion.

No, Atheism does not cure anything.

From what I've seen, atheism at best may cure the ills unique to religion, but atheism can also open the doors to other ills that may be rarely seen in religion.

Even then, it's actually not true!

I suppose that if a God exists, then mistakenly believing he doesn't exist is an ill.

[Paul of Tarsus]

When one is not convinced that any gods exist, one is an atheist.

That's a newer definition that's popular among many atheists nowadays. A more "traditional" definition is that an atheist is a person who actively denies that God exists.

The "traditional" definition was undoubtedly supplied by theists.

Here's the definition from The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:

atheism
Subject: Religion

The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’.

So the Greeks evidently thought of an atheist as a person who holds the belief that there is no God. Since most Greeks were theists, then you appear to be correct that theists came up with that definition for atheism.

It always amuses me that theists presume to tell atheists exactly what they do and do not believe.

Atheists don't tell Christians what they believe?

All that aside, how is it in any way relevant anyway?

Relevant to what? I think it's important in any dialogue to establish a common understanding of important terms.

[brunumb]

So the Greeks evidently thought of an atheist as a person who holds the belief that there is no God. Since most Greeks were theists, then you appear to be correct that theists came up with that definition for atheism.

Atheism is in the broadest sense a rejection of any belief in the existence of deities. Ironically, early Christians were widely reviled as atheists because they did not believe in the existence of the Roman gods.

[brunumb]

Many atheists no doubt do employ the golden rule. It's important to point out that the golden rule did not originate with the Bible, and some people think that the golden rule, at least as an ideal, is as old as humanity is and common among all people. Nevertheless, one must wonder if atheists are free to disregard the miraculous claims of religion, then are they free to disregard the golden rule as popularized by religion.

Disregarding the miraculous claims of religion is in no way related to following the golden rule which need not be associated with religious belief at all. So, what was your point?

[Paul of Tarsus]

What ills do you suggest are unique to the religious that one should seek to find cures for elsewhere?

Like I mentioned; fanaticism, cruelty, and irrationality are ills that people may seek to escape by forsaking religion. There's an entire atheist organization that's dedicated to that premise/promise: the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). Leave religion, and be "free"!

How does that answer my question (bolded above)?

I "bolded" my answer. Are you saying those ills are not unique enough?

Atheism is in the broadest sense a rejection of any belief in the existence of deities.

In that case atheism is not simply a passive lack of belief in God but an active rejection of belief in God.

Many atheists no doubt do employ the golden rule. It's important to point out that the golden rule did not originate with the Bible, and some people think that the golden rule, at least as an ideal, is as old as humanity is and common among all people. Nevertheless, one must wonder if atheists are free to disregard the miraculous claims of religion, then are they free to disregard the golden rule as popularized by religion.

Disregarding the miraculous claims of religion is in no way related to following the golden rule which need not be associated with religious belief at all. So, what was your point?

Some atheists out of anger against religion may reject all of it including the moral tenets that religion teaches. Anything associated with religion might be deemed as bad, and anything religion opposes might be seen as good. I've wondered, for example, if that's why so many atheists zealously support euthanasia: Many religions oppose euthanasia, so euthanasia has got to be good!

[Paul of Tarsus]

I'm not sure what your point is. If you are saying that religion is no cure for the presumed ills of atheism, then you might be right, but that's not the issue. Is it true that atheism cures the supposed ills of religion?

I rewrote your post to demonstrate that if an atheist had suggested something similar to what you have suggested, the potential responses a theist might have provided to the atheist would have helped you anticipate some of the responses you've received from atheists in this thread.

Thank you for helping me to know what answers to expect, but I prefer not to assume what the answers to my questions will be. It's best let the people I ask answer for themselves.

[brunumb]

What ills do you suggest are unique to the religious that one should seek to find cures for elsewhere?

Like I mentioned; fanaticism, cruelty, and irrationality are ills that people may seek to escape by forsaking religion. There's an entire atheist organization that's dedicated to that premise/promise: the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). Leave religion, and be "free"!

How does that answer my question (bolded above)?

I "bolded" your answer. Are you saying those ills are not unique enough?

You bolded my question. The second bolding is your response. How are fanaticism, cruelty, and irrationality unique to religion? While I agree that these things are a feature of many religious sects, how can one escape these simply by choosing to not believe when the issue of belief in gods is not a matter of choice? I can see the benefit of organisations that offer support for those who have lost their faith and feel trapped because the religious do not regard such people very favorably. Shunning is one of the cruelest weapons that can be wielded against them.