Shahter wrote:
there's no common purpose in atheism - and that's what supposedly makes it a personal thing. like any other beleaf, it is a "crutch" people use as personal support in this overwhelming world of information. but atheism is as much faith-based as any religion out there, and as such it is just as vulnerable to information manipulation and abuse of worst description. now, before you start telling me how much more "enlightened" and "scientific" atheism is, look at where i'm from - i know exactly how horrible "organized atheism" can be.
personally, i consider myself agnostic - i reject each and every beleaf-based socious construct out there, including those based on atheism. imho "is there a god?" is not a valid question at all - simply because in the world i live in there's no need for a variable "god" to establish a firm and comfortable understanding of this world and my place in it. however, the simple fact that i never had anything i'd consider as faith in something, i don't simply reject in all, because, for all i know "faith" might just be that mysterious "sixth sence" which allows certain people to feel... well... something i don't - call it "divine presence", "magic", what have you.
I don't think anyone's going to argue with you about how evil the atheist agendas of Stalin and Mao were. You make a good point in bringing this up. Still, I suppose it comes back down to the idea that dogma (religious or otherwise) allows people to justify doing horrible things. Stalinism and Maoism basically revered their leaders as gods, which technically made them religions in their own rights.
I suppose true atheism would involve no one to worship or idolize. Pure individualism mixed with atheism would likely produce a society of selfish people, but they'd be too unorganized to be any real threat on a massive level. Humanism seems interested in filling this moral void that can result from self-centered atheism, and while it does seem to have its strong points, I can't say I follow it.
I guess, at this point, I could more accurately say that dogma is what leads to insanity and evil behavior more than religion or atheism. As you mentioned, agnosticism is probably the most rational way of looking at the supernatural, because it makes the least amount of assumptions possible.
I suppose I'm sort of one myself, because at this point, I generally find that the only time I even give a shit about religion is where it applies to government. The only time religion really bothers me is when people try to create laws based on it.