From the 'Introduction to Atheism' article: "In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that anyone who calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or dogma to justify his actions, should be considered a Christian."

This is a very dangerous position to advocate. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that atheism or humanism bears responsibility for attrocities of people who claim to be atheists or humanists, including the Rape of Nanking.

Such a position is illogical. The most plausible reasons for such actions, whether the actor espouses Christianity or Atheism, have more to do with Will to Power, Greed, and other factors than Christianity or Atheism.

-DM-

Thank you for your feedback regarding <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html" target="_blank">An Introduction to Atheism</a> by mathew. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post.

In the meantime, my comments: Christians themselves cannot agree on what constitutes a genuine Christian. There are 20,000+ "Christian" denominations, and the number grows by the day. By contrast, there are only two types of atheist: strong atheists who deny the existence of "God" or gods, and weak atheists who have no belief in "God" or gods. In any case, I disagree that atheism or humanism necessarily bears responsibility for the atrocities committed by people who claim to be and who are in fact atheists; atheism and humanism have no creed which involves committing atrocities, in fact atheists in general and humanists in particular deplore atrocities. Atheistic and humanistic philosophies do not justify the commission of atrocities nor can they honestly be used for that purpose. Christianity and Christian belief, on the other hand, can be and are used for that purpose.

--Don--

P.S. If you wish to discuss this further, you should become a <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=agree" target="_blank">registered user</a> and do so in an appropriate forum such as <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=45" target="_blank">Miscellaneous Religion Discussions</a> or <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=52" target="_blank">Moral Foundations & Principles</a>.

mathew

mmontgomery: If you feel that it's a dangerous position, what do you propose as a better alternative? How should I decide who's a Christian and who isn't?

-DM-

[Copied here from Feedback to facilitate further discussion. --Don--]

Malaclypse the Younger

&lt;mmontgomery&gt;

Well, you are conflating two issues:

• What consititutes "identification"?
• What constitutes causation from identification to action?

It seems that identification of either a person or an action depends on both self-identification, and adherence to some well-defined objective standard, if present.

In the second case, even when identification has beend established, the fact that an action has been performed by some or even most members who fulfill that identification does not prove that the identification causes the action.

One way to prove causality is to show that the objective standard defined for the identification entails that its members perform the action, or at least the members predominantly believe that the standard entails the action.

In the case of christianity, we have evidence that a logical analysis of christianity entails certain actions nontheists consider immoral: writings that show, in the past, that people who presumably spoke authoritatively about christian doctrine (adherence to which is an obvious objective determinant for identifying as christian) believed that christianity entailed acts we consider immoral (e.g. the permission and encouragement of slavery).

(It should be noted that redefinition of christian doctrine to exclude these acts as immoral is unobjectionable and even praiseworthy.)

In the case of atheism, however, the objective criterion is "lack of a belief in god". Such a lack of belief, however, does not entail immorality nor moral nihilism, indeed, atheism does it entail any particular ethical position. Assumptions (such as humanism or egocentrism) must be added to atheism to construct any moral system; atheism merely somewhat restricts the range of ethical assumptions (e.g. excluding Divine Command Theory).

Secular Humanism is, however, a real ethical theory, substantially defined by <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/" target="_blank">The Council for Secular Humanism</a>. To show that Secular Humanism entailed any morally objectionable behavior, you would need to show either that the objectively defined tenet entail that behavior, or that people who identify and appear to follow Secular Humanism believe it entails such behavior.

It is not necessarily illogical. However, it might or might not be true.

Again, this may or may not be true. What is more or less "plausible" only suggest avenues of exploration; is possible, however, for an apparently implausible statement to be true.

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Sephiroth

Since when were the Japanese atheists (referring to the mention of the Rape of Nanking)?