Atheists And Conflict Resolution

From Conservapedia
In 2018, David Silverman said about his fellow atheists: "Lots and lots of division in our movement. Hard, bad division... And that has resulted in a splintering and factioning of the movement that I have never seen before and none of us have."[1]

There is a lot of internal conflict within the atheist population in the Western World (see: Atheist factions and Atheism and social skills).

Furthermore, an important aspect of conflict resolution is being open-minded enough to view the conflict objectively and from the other person's point of view. There is social science research indicating that atheists are less open-minded (see: Atheism and open-mindedness).

In addition, there is no strong basis for forgiveness under an atheist worldview (see: Atheism and forgiveness).

Also, conflict resolution between atheists which uses the secular/civil authorities can be lengthy and expensive (see also: Richard Carrier's lawsuits against fellow atheists).

Most atheists are likely East Asians (see: Asian atheism). Mainland China which has state atheism and has the largest atheist population in the world, is increasingly being aggressive/belligerent towards its neighbors and making Indo-Pacific dialogue among nations in the region more difficult.[2] See: China and atheism and Atheism and world peace

Additionally, most Americans/Europeans/others see China's unfair trade practices being a threat to their economic interests and China has been stubbornly refusing to resolve this matter.[3][4] Furthermore, China has been engaging in a large amount intellectual property theft and has been reluctant to resolve this issue (see: Atheistic China and intellectual property theft).

Moreover, there is a significant amount of evidence showing that atheists are often unreasonable (see: Atheists and unreasonableness).

Contention/quarrelsomeness within the atheist population[edit]

See also: Atheist factions

The atheist Neil Carter wrote: "Friends of mine have noted lately how biting and critical the atheist community can be, not only toward outsiders, but even toward its own members. Has there ever been a subculture more prone to eating its own than this one? I really don’t know."[5]

Blair Scott served on the American Atheists board of directors. Mr. Scott formerly served as a State Director for the American Atheists organization in the state of Alabama. On December 1, 2012 he quit his post as a director of outreach for the American Atheist due to infighting within the American atheist movement.[6]

Mr. Blair wrote: "I have spent the last week mulling over what I want to do at this point in the movement. I’m tired of the in-fighting: at every level. I am especially tired of allowing myself to get sucked into it and engaging in the very behavior that is irritating..me."[6]

David Silverman, ex-president of the American Atheists organization.

At the 2018 American Atheists convention, the ex-president of the American Atheist organization David Silverman declared:

“ It is a hard time to be an atheist activist. This has affected us. And it has affected our community...

...it has really affected us. We are suffering a level of defeatism that I have never seen before...

And people are reacting to each other now. And so that is causing a division. Lots and lots of division in our movement. Hard, bad division... And that has resulted in a splintering and factioning of the movement that I have never seen before and none of us have.

In other words, we're in a bad situation and it's getting worse.[7]

”

Numerous atheists have declared that the "atheist movement is dead/dying" (see: Decline of the atheist movement)[8]

The atheist James Croft wrote about American atheism:

“ ...something has happened to organized secularism, such that its priorities and population have rapidly changed. Today, there is a deepening rift between two wings of the movement, and the changes in Skepticon demonstrate this perfectly. The new rift in the secular community, it seems to me, parallels one deepening in the culture at large: it is between those who are on board with contemporary social justice culture, and those who are not.

In the community of skeptics, this rift is filled with lava: there is an incredibly intense animosity between those on different sides, and the divide seems impossible to cross.[9]

”
Richard Dawkins
The new atheist Richard Dawkins was at the center of the Elevatorgate controversy. [10]

Jacques Rousseau wrote in the Daily Maverick: "Elevatorgate..has resulted in three weeks of infighting in the secular community. Some might observe that we indulge in these squabbles fairly frequently."[11]

An ex-atheist wrote: "As an Atheist for 40 years, I noticed that there is not just a wide variety of Atheist positions, but there exists an actual battle between certain Atheist factions."[12] See also: Schools of atheist thought

According to an international study done by William Bainbridge, atheism is frequent among people whose interpersonal social obligations are weak and is also linked to lower fertility rates in advanced industrial nations (See also: Atheism and fertility rates).[13] See: Atheism and social skills

In terms of politics and atheist infighting, there is friction between right-wing atheists (and right of center atheists) and secular leftist. See: Atheism and politics and Western atheism, schisms and political polarization

In 2017, atheist David Smalley has indicated that leftist/progressive atheists were "killing the atheist movement" through being contentious and divisive.[14] Smalley indicated that the atheist movement was disintegrating.[15]

The website Atheism and the City wrote about the 2018 cancellation of the first major atheist conference to be held in New York City:

“ But none of this is going to happen now because the event has just been canceled. The reasons why are complicated, but it started out difficult enough. The atheist community has splintered into a million shards in recent years. There are the atheist feminists and the atheist anti-feminists, the social justice warrior atheists and the anti-social justice warrior atheists. The pro-PC atheists and the anti-PC atheists. There are pro-Trump atheists and anti pro-Trump atheists. Atheists are split over gamergate, elevatorgate, whether we should organize, or whether we should even call ourselves atheists at all. The divisions go on and on.[16] ”

The Journal of Contemporary Religion says about schisms within atheism: "The persistence of internal schisms and regular outbreaks of in-fighting within the atheist movement also ensure that much energy is effectively wasted on parochial concerns and further undermine attempts to establish a genuine sense of group cohesion."[17]

The Journal of Contemporary Religion say that internal divisions within the American atheist movement have to do with:

“ internal divisions within the movement around issues relating to goals, strategies, and direction. These can be seen most notably in debates about the formation of a collective ‘atheist’ identity, in disputes about the effectiveness of confrontationalism and accommodationism, and in concerns about the movement’s ethnic, racial, and gender profile.[18] ”

Atheism and forgiveness/unforgiveness[edit]

See also: Atheism and forgiveness

The atheist Neil Carter wrote:

“ At least Christians have to pay lipservice to forgiveness because they believe it’s what God wants from them. Do atheists have any such compunction? I fear that we have no mechanism which compels us as a community to be kind to each other, to speak to one another with respect.[19] ”

John Lennox on atheism having no basis for forgiveness[edit]

John Lennox

Miriam Diez Bosch, who interviewed Christian apologist John Lennox wrote:

“ Where creation has become dehumanized, the core concepts of faith — mercy and forgiveness — become meaningless and irrelevant, says Lennox.

“It is one of the reasons why I am a Christian, because atheism has no forgiveness, of course, and no ultimate justice. The genius of Christianity is that the acceptance does not come after the final Judgment, it comes at the start, because God has done something in Christ that deals with my central problem of guilt. I live my life not to gain God’s acceptance, but because I have got it as a free gift.”

This acquaintance with mercy begets mercy, “always. I want every day and every year to be a Year of Mercy and I am glad to see that emphasis because this is the Christian Gospel: God in his grace has shown mercy to us. It is not something I deserve, it is something God offers.”[20]

”

James S. Spiegal and unforgiveness as a cause of atheism[edit]

See also: Causes of atheism and Atheism and bitterness and Atheism and love

The Apostle Paul taught about love that "it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered.." (1 Corinthians 13:5 NASB). See: Atheism and love

The Christian Post reports about the Christian philosopher James S. Spiegel's book The Making of an Atheist:

“ Spiegel, who converted to Christianity in 1980, has witnessed the pattern among several of his friends. Their path from Christianity to atheism involved: moral slippage (such as infidelity, resentment or unforgiveness); followed by withdrawal from contact with fellow believers; followed by growing doubts about their faith, accompanied by continued indulgence in the respective sin; and culminating in a conscious rejection of God.[21] ”

Atheism and open-mindedness[edit]

See also: Atheism and open-mindedness

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is a staff member of Creation Ministries International.

An important component of conflict resolution is being open-minded enough to view the conflict objectively and from the other person's point of view.

Concerning atheism and open-mindedness, The Independent reported in an article entitled Atheists are less open-minded than religious people, study claims:

“ Religious people are more tolerant of different viewpoints than atheists, according to researchers at a Catholic university.

A study of 788 people in the UK, France and Spain concluded that atheists and agnostics think of themselves as more open-minded than those with faith, but are are actually less tolerant to differing opinions and ideas.

Religious believers "seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives", according to psychology researchers at the private Catholic University of Louvain (UCL), Belgium's largest French-speaking university.

Filip Uzarevic, who co-wrote the paper, said his message was that "closed-mindedness is not necessarily found only among the religious".[22]

”

PsyPost indicates:

“ New research indicates that religious believers can be better at perceiving and integrating different perspectives than atheists in Western Europe.

“The main message of the study is that closed-mindedness is not necessarily found only among the religious,” the study’s corresponding author, Filip Uzarevic of the Catholic University of Louvain, told PsyPost.

The research was published April 27, 2017, in the peer-reviewed journal Personality and Individual Differences.

Atheists tended to show greater intolerance of contradiction, meaning when they were presented with two seemingly contradictory statements they rated one as very true and the other as very false. They also showed less propensity to be able to imagine arguments contrary to their own position and find them somewhat convincing.[23]

”
The Cathedral of Our Lady of Strasbourg was turned into a Temple of Reason by the Cult of Reason. See: Atheist cults

The abstract for the 2017 journal article Are atheists undogmatic? published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences states:

"Previous theory and evidence favor the idea that religious people tend to be dogmatic to some extent whereas non-religious people are undogmatic: the former firmly hold beliefs, some of which are implausible or even contrary to the real world evidence. We conducted a further critical investigation of this idea, distinguishing three aspects of rigidity: (1) self-reported dogmatism, defined as unjustified certainty vs. not standing for any beliefs, (2) intolerance of contradiction, measured through (low) endorsement of contradictory statements, and (3) low readiness to take a different from one's own perspective, measured through the myside bias technique. Non-believers, at least in Western countries where irreligion has become normative, should be lower on the first, but higher on the other two constructs. Data collected from three countries (UK, France, and Spain, total N = 788) and comparisons between Christians, atheists, and agnostics confirmed the expectations, with agnostics being overall similar to atheists."[24]

New Atheism and open-mindedness[edit]

See also: New Atheism, dogmatism and Jonathon Haidt's study

New atheist Sam Harris speaking in 2010.

New Atheism is a contemporary form of militant atheism. The new atheist Richard Dawkins said about New Atheism, "[O]ur struggle is not so much an intellectual struggle, as a political one: What are we going to do about it?”.[25]

Using special text analysis software, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt found that new atheists very often wrote in dogmatic terms in their major works using words such as “always,” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.”[26] Of the 75,000 words in new atheist Sam Harris' The End of Faith, 2.24% of them connote or are associated with certainty.[27]

Springerlink indicates in the abstract for New Atheism, Open-Mindedness, and Critical Thinking by Christopher R. Cotter (first presented at the (New) Atheism, Scientism, and Open-Mindedness Conference, Lancaster University, April 3, 2012 and the Workshop for the Interdisciplinary Study of Religion and Culture, University of Edinburgh, April 25, 2012):

“ A common theme throughout the writings of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens is the importance of ‘critical thinking’. Not only do these authors believe that they themselves are critical thinkers, they also advocate critical thinking as a key element in their idealized atheistic future. This chapter has been written to assess the veracity of their claims to critical thinking in their engagements with ‘religion’, via an engagement with related literature on ‘open-mindedness,’ particularly the work of William Hare and Harvey Siegel. An analysis of this nature is not merely of academic interest, but is of great importance given the popularity of their books both within and outside the atheistic milieu, the near-canonical status that they have achieved, and the effects of their rhetoric upon the beliefs and practices of individuals in the ‘real’ world. The argument in this chapter flows sequentially through delineations of the concepts of ‘open-mindedness’ and ‘critical thinking’, and a demonstration of the New Atheists’ valorization of critical thinking, before discussing open-mindedness as a constituent part of critical thinking, and then building a three stage argument to demonstrate that the New Atheists are not open-minded, and that therefore they are not critical thinkers (in the context of their most popular considerations of ‘religion’).[28] ”

In a 2014 New Republic article entitled The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins: His atheism is its own kind of narrow religion, the atheist philosopher John Gray wrote:

“ One might wager a decent sum of money that it has never occurred to Dawkins that to many people he appears as a comic figure. His default mode is one of rational indignation—a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind of a kind one might expect in a schoolmaster in a minor public school sometime in the 1930s. He seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable. “I am not a good observer,” he writes modestly. He is referring to his observations of animals and plants, but his weakness applies more obviously in the case of humans. Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind, Dawkins misses much that is of importance in human beings—himself and others.[29] ”

Antitheism and open-mindedness[edit]

Joseph Stalin's atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people. See: Militant atheism and Atheism and mass murder

See also: Antitheism and Antitheism and antisocial behavior and Atheism and narcissism and Atheism and anger

Antitheism is active opposition to and hatred of theistic belief. It is distinguished from simple atheism in that it is not simply a rejection of belief in God; rather, the antitheist is actively opposed to such belief.[30] While a particular atheist might be content to deny the existence of God, but leave others to their own faith, the antitheist will actively seek to undermine or eliminate the faith of others. Thus, all antitheists are atheists, but not all atheists are necessarily antitheists. Antitheism is also sometimes referred to as militant atheism, and is prominent amongst people who see religion as promoting "hatred".

In the United States, a University of Tennessee study estimated that 15% of American atheists were antitheists.[31]

Social science research indicates that antitheists score the highest among atheists when it comes to personality traits such as narcissism, dogmatism, and anger.[32][33] Furthermore, they scored lowest when it comes to agreeableness and positive relations with others.[32]

Atheism, open-mindedness and groupthink[edit]

See also: Atheism and groupthink

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of individuals in which the quest for harmony/conformity within the group results in irrational and/or poor decision-making.

In relation to atheism and groupthink, the atheist website Atheist Revolution declared about segments of the atheist population:

“ We've seen various cliques emerge, some of which have largely abandoned critical thinking for dogma. This mutual admiration society strikes me as being antithetical to free thought, as similar ideas are rewarded through promotion while diverse perspectives receive less attention. This sets the stage for a type of groupthink that runs counter to big tent atheism...

By elevating some in our movement to the level of celebrities, I fear we have cheapened it through irrational hero worship.[34]

”

Atheism and dogmatism[edit]

Atheism and intolerance[edit]

Atheist lawsuits[edit]

See also: Atheist lawsuits

Atheist organizations in the Western World are often litigious. They often use ligitation to restrict the degree of religious freedom in a society (see also: Atheist lawsuits and restrictions to religious freedom).

Sikivu Hutchinson speaking ath the Center for Inquiry.

The Freedom From Atheism Foundation has a webpage on their website entitled "Ongoing Lawsuits".[35] The American Atheists has a webpage on their website entitled "Legal sucesses".[36] The Center for Inquiry engaged in lawsuits related to faith based initiatives concerning prison ministry.[37][38][39][40]

In June 2014, given the focus of atheist organizations on lawsuits, Sikivu Hutchinson wrote in the Washington Post that atheist organizations generally focus on church/state separation and creationism issues and not the concerns the less affluent African-American population faces.[41] Hutchinson also mentioned that church organizations do offer significant help to poor African-Americans.[41] See also: Atheism and charity and Western atheism and race

Atheist lawsuits and public relations[edit]

See: Atheist lawsuits and public relations

Atheists and expensive/lengthy conflict resolution with other atheists[edit]

See also: Atheist lawsuits and Atheist organizations and scandals

The Apostle Paul defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)

The Apostle Paul declared about Christians resolving disputes among themselves rather than using the civil courts: "When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?" (1 Corinthians 6:1).

Atheists have no authoritive source of information which discourages litigious behavior against fellow atheists. The only thing that mitigates the amount of atheist lawsuits is that most atheists tend to be apathetic regarding their atheism and thus atheists participation in atheist organizations is rather small and thus there is less conflict about property held by many atheists (see: Atheism and apathy). In addition, due to significant conflict among atheists, fundraising by atheist organizations is significantly down so the amount of wealth held by atheist organizations makes them less inviting in terms of potential lawsuits (See: Atheist organizations and fundraising).

In addition, not possessing a religious basis for morality, which can provide a basis for objective morality, atheism is fundamentally incapable of providing a coherent system of morality.[42] See also: Atheism and morality and Atheist population and immorality and Atheism and ethics

Atheist Heman Mehta on the Richard Carrier lawsuit against Freethought blog, The Orbit and the Skepticon conference[edit]

See also: Richard Carrier's lawsuits against fellow atheists

Hemant Mehta

The atheist Richard Carrier initiated defamation lawsuits against Freethought Blogs, The Orbit and the Skepticon conference.

In 2018, the atheist Hemant Mehta wrote about the matter:

“ The lawsuit began in September of 2016, when Dr. Richard Carrier..., the author of several books about ancient philosophy, religion, and science, sued individual atheists, Freethought Blogs and The Orbit (atheist blog networks), and the Skepticon conference on charges of defamation, interference with his business, and emotional distress. Those charges stemmed from posts made about his alleged sexual harassment, an accusation he repeatedly denied.[43] ”

Mehta also wrote:

“ In all three lawsuits, Carrier is asking the Court for damages worth $1.3 million — that’s nearly $4 million in total — in addition to legal costs, interest, and anything else the Courts deem fit. He’s also filing all three lawsuits on his own — without the help of a lawyer (at least one who’s listed in the complaints).[44] ”

PZ Myers' commentary on a Richard Carrier defamation lawsuit[edit]

PZ Myers

In 2019, the atheist PZ Myers wrote about the defamation lawsuit filed against Freethought Blogs by fellow atheist Richard Carrier:

“ The next step in the never-ending nonsense that is the Carrier lawsuit takes place tomorrow, a hearing at the Warren E. Burger Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in St Paul, at 1:30 in the Devitt Courtroom. Richard Carrier will be there — he has to be, since he’s acting as his own lawyer (there’s some common phrase that ends, “has a fool for a client”).

…I should at least be there to witness the fate of my financial future.

As always, we’re still looking for donations to support our resistance against this SLAPP suit. Our colleagues at Affinity and sterr have also been carrying out sales and auctions to raise money for the effort. Lawyers are expensive. I just want the foolishness to end.[45]

”

PZ Myers is using the services of the well-known free speech lawyer Marc Randazza.[46]

Shortly after the first day of legal proceedings Myers wrote:

“ Anyway, Randazza pointed out that everything I said was a statement of what I’d been told, that it was even backed up by documents that Carrier himself put in evidence (the emails between Carrier and Dadhaboy are clearcut examples of persistent obnoxiousness, for one thing). The whole suit is going to get thrown out eventually, so why not cut it short? The judge said that his role there was just to make a judgment on merits of his procedural argument, unfortunately. Which is fair, even if these procedural technicalities allow him to carry on his legal harassment indefinitely.

That’s where it all stands, unsatisfactorily. Randazza made his arguments that Minnesota limitations apply, Carrier made his that he gets to bring in Ohio law, there was some discussion of the contents of the suit that Carrier brought in in his own filing, and the judge said he’ll make a ruling when his workload permits, which may be months and months away. So we wait. If the judge agrees with my lawyer, we’re done, the lawsuit is thrown out. If the judge decides to let Carrier have his way, the process will linger on, we’ll have a trial and discovery and all those fun things which will drag the sleaze in Carrier’s history into the light. Both have their advantages — Randazza would love to bring this to trial on first amendment grounds — but I’d rather just have it over and done with.

It’s not over and done with yet.[47]

”

Other commentary by PZ Myers on Richard Carrier's lawsuits[edit]

Richard Carrier's commentary on the defamation lawsuits[edit]

Legal analysis of a Richard Carrier defamation lawsuit[edit]

Commentary at PZ Myers' blog regarding a Richard Carrier lawsuit[edit]

In 2019, a commentator on PZ Myers' Pharyngula blog wrote about the Richard Carrier lawsuit against Freethought Blogs:

“ Presuming, as I think is likely, that the magistrate recommends dismissal...

...I learned something I hadn’t known about the procedural posture of this case: the two sides have agreed to give the magistrate judge the authority to try the entire lawsuit—which means that the things I wrote above about making a recommendation to the district judge don’t apply in this particular case. The magistrate will be deciding the whole thing.

...Carrier would then have the right to appeal his loss to a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. This would mean a few more months during which P.Z.’s lawyers and Carrier would submit further written arguments to the appellate panel. I suspect the court would not order oral argument in a case like this, so the panel would likely issue its decision based on written submissions alone.

If we assume that Carrier lost at that phase as well, he would then have the right to ask for a rehearing in front of the full Eight Circuit (“en banc”) and/or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appellate decision. The chances that either one of those requests would be granted, however, are remote.

All of these courts have wide discretion in deciding how quickly or slowly to rule. That means it’s very difficult to place a confident time frame on when we should expect to know the final outcome of the case; if every court took as much time as reasonably possible just to complete the appeal process described above, it could take… I dunno, five years? But this lawsuit is in fact a small, relatively simple one, so it’s more likely that that process will be finished in a year or less.[48]

”

Atheism and violence[edit]

See: Atheism and violence

Atheism and world peace[edit]

Atheistic communism and mass murder/torture[edit]

Atheism and mass murder[edit]

See also: Atheism and Mass Murder and Atheist atrocities

Historically, atheism has generally been an integral part of communist ideology (see: Atheism and communism).

It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives.[49] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[50]

Joseph Stalin's atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.

Theodore Beale notes concerning atheism and mass murder:

“ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![51][52]

”

Explanatory link between secular leftism and mass murder[edit]

Theodore Beale wrote about the secular left and mass murder:

“ ...it does, however, cast serious doubt on the common atheist assertion that a godless society will be a peaceful one. The significant question has never been if atheism causes political leaders to kill in large quantities, it is why political leaders who happen to be atheist have been inordinately inclined to kill in large quantities.

As I wrote in TIA, the answer is probably to be found in the fact that atheists who have committed great historical crimes are almost exclusively left-wing atheists with utopian visions of restructuring human society; Ayn Rand atheists aren't exactly known for attempting to violently restructure societal order. This is why atheists like Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and especially Michel Onfray are far more dangerous than those more akin to Daniel Dennett and even Richard Dawkins.[53]

”

The degree to which atheist society is authoritarian vs. wedded to a democratic process also has a bearing on whether it will engage in mass murder.

Atheistic communism and torture[edit]

See also: Atheistic communism and torture

The website Victimsofcommunism.org declares concerning atheistic communism and the use of torture:

“ Significantly, communists did not merely try to block or halt religious faith but to reverse it. This was particularly true for Romania, even before the Nicolai Ceausescu era. This meant not just forbidding religious practice and jailing ministers and believers but employing torture to force them to renounce their faith. It was not enough to contain, silence, even punish believers in prison; it was decided they must be tortured in truly unimaginably degrading ways to attempt to undo religious faith.[54] ”

For more information, please see: Atheistic communism and torture

Christian worldview concerning resolving conflict among Christians[edit]

See also: Christian worldview concerning resolving conflict among Christians

The prophet Moses authored the book of Deuteronomy

Under a Christian worldview the following 4 things apply in terms of conflicts and wrongdoing within the Christianity community:

1. Matthew 18:16 ESV:

"But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses."

(Matthew is alluding to Deuteronomy 19:15 ESV : “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.)

2. Matthew 18:15-17 ESV

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Jesus Christ and his apostles taught a gospel of love.[55] See also: Atheism and love

3. Jesus Christ and Christendom have emphasized the importance of love and forgiveness and in the last few decades mental health specialists have increasingly seen the importance of forgiveness to alleviate bitterness and other emotional problems within individuals.[56][57] See also: Atheism and love

Concerning love, the Apostle Paul wrote: "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends." (1 Corinthians 13: 4-8 ESV).

In addition, the Apostle Paul wrote: "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." (Philipians 2:3).

As adults, children who attended religious services regularly are 87 percent more likely to possess high levels of forgiveness.[58] See also: Atheism and emotional problems

4. As noted above, the Apostle Paul declared about Christians resolving disputes among themselves rather than using the civil courts: "When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?" (1 Corinthians 6:1).

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ↑ David Silverman - How the Mighty Get Back Up
  2. ↑ China's belligerence casts shadow over maiden Indo-Pacific dialogue, Economic Times
  3. ↑ Americans Say China Trade Unfair, Trade With Canada, EU Fair
  4. ↑ Most Europeans see China’s ‘aggressive practices’ as a threat to their economic interests, survey shows, CNBC
  5. ↑ It’s Past Time for Atheism to Grow Up by Neil Carter
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Former 2012 web page at Atheist.org website entitled "An Open Letter from Blair Scott"
  7. ↑ David Silverman - How the Mighty Get Back Up
  8. ↑
  9. ↑ Skepticon: the rifts are full of lava! by PZ Myers
  10. ↑
  11. ↑ Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can rip my soul
  12. ↑ An atheist new world order? Is the Rational Response Squad making an attempt?
  13. ↑ Bainbridge, William (2005). "Atheism" (PDF). Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion. 1 (Article 2): 1–26.
  14. ↑ Reasonably Controversial: How the Regressive Left Is Killing the Atheist Movement by David Smalley
  15. ↑ Reasonably Controversial: How the Regressive Left Is Killing the Atheist Movement by David Smalley
  16. ↑ The Atheist Conference is Dead
  17. ↑ Divided We Stand: The Politics of the Atheist Movement in the United States by Steven Kettell Journal of Contemporary Religion, Volume 29, Issue 3, 2014
  18. ↑ Divided We Stand: The Politics of the Atheist Movement in the United States by Steven Kettell, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Volume 29, Issue 3, 2014
  19. ↑ It’s Past Time for Atheism to Grow Up by Neil Carter
  20. ↑ Professor John Lennox on why atheists are missing the target by Miriam Diez Bosch
  21. ↑ Christian Philosopher Explores Causes of Atheism
  22. ↑ Atheists are less open-minded than religious people, study claims, The Independent, 2017
  23. ↑ Study finds the nonreligious can be more close-minded than the religious By ERIC W. DOLAN, PsyPost June 23, 2017
  24. ↑ Are atheists undogmatic?, Personality and Individual Differences, Filip Uzarevica, Vassilis Sarogloua, Magali Clobert, Volume 116, 1 October 2017, Pages 164-170
  25. ↑ Faithless: The politics of new atheism by Steven Kettell
  26. ↑ Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind by JONATHAN HAIDT, February 3, 2014 8:36 pm
  27. ↑ Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind by JONATHAN HAIDT, February 3, 2014 8:36 pm
  28. ↑ New Atheism, Open-Mindedness, and Critical Thinking by Christopher R. Cotter
  29. ↑ The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins, New Republic by John Gray
  30. ↑ http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Antitheist
  31. ↑ The 6 Types of Atheists and Non-Believers in America By Amanda Marcotte / AlterNet July 11, 2013
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Science Shows New Atheists to be Mean and Closed-Minded
  33. ↑ Why Sam Harris is Unlikely to Change his Mind by JONATHAN HAIDT, February 3, 2014 8:36 pm
  34. ↑ Feeling Disillusioned With the Atheist Movement, Atheist Revolution
  35. ↑ Ongoing Lawsuits - Legal - Freedom From Religion Foundation
  36. ↑ Legal sucesses - American Atheists
  37. ↑ Postal, Leslie (April 20, 2011). Bill asks voters to OK taxpayer funding of religious institutions. Orlando Sentinel.
  38. ↑ Mazzei, Patricia (April 27, 2011). Blaine amendment repeal passes Florida house. Tampa Bay Times.
  39. ↑ Center for Inquiry will not appeal adverse decision in Florida lawsuit. CFI (February 8, 2016).
  40. ↑ Bettis, Kara (February 23, 2016). Atheists drop suit to block Christian prison ministry funding. New Boston Post. Retrieved on May 16, 2016.
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 Atheism has a big race problem that no one’s talking about by Dr. Sikivu Hutchinson, Washington Post June 16, 2014
  42. ↑ Paul Copan
  43. ↑ Judge Dismisses Richard Carrier’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Atheist Bloggers BY HEMANT MEHTA
  44. ↑ Dr. Richard Carrier Has (Again) Sued Several Atheists on Charges of Defamation BY HEMANT MEHTA
  45. ↑ See you in court! by PZ Myers
  46. ↑ Legal wrasslin’ indefinitely prolonged, PZ Myers
  47. ↑ Legal wrasslin’ indefinitely prolonged, PZ Myers
  48. ↑ See you in court! by PZ Myers
  49. ↑ Multiple references:
  50. ↑ Rummel, R. J. (November 1993). "How many did communist regimes murder?" University of Hawaii website; Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War. Retrieved July 19, 2014.
  51. ↑ Vox Day (Theodore Beale), The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, Inc.), 2008, p. 17.
  52. ↑ Ammi, Ken (June 11, 2009). "Atheism [quoting Vox Day]". Creation Ministries International. Retrieved on July 19, 2014.
  53. ↑ Atheist Demotivator #4 by Theodore Beal
  54. ↑ The War on religion
  55. ↑ The Triumph of the Gospel of Love by Monk Themistocles (Adamopoulo)
  56. ↑ Indian J Psychiatry. 2009 Apr-Jun; 51(2): 153–156. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.49459, PMCID: PMC2755173, Forgiveness: A note for psychiatrists by Prakash Gangdev
  57. ↑ The Triumph of the Gospel of Love by Monk Themistocles (Adamopoulo)
  58. ↑ How to Help Prevent Your Child from Becoming an Atheist by Joe Carter

Categories: [Atheism] [Psychology] [Political Science]

↧ Download as ZWI file | Last modified: 03/23/2023 14:40:46 | 8 views
☰ Source: https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheists_and_conflict_resolution | License: CC BY-SA 3.0

ZWI signed:
  Encycloreader by the Knowledge Standards Foundation (KSF) ✓[what is this?]

ZWI viewer by the EncyclosphereKSF