A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists

[AntiTheist]

I’m not twisting his idea at all – I’m just looking at the logical extension.

The original idea is that self-interest keeps people from murdering. [actually, I think Myers isn’t getting at the root here – I think the thing that keeps most people from murdering is the fact that very few people actually feel like murdering] He was saying that it’s in your interest not to go around killing people. There aren’t going to be many situations where it’s in your interest to kill someone because any benefit you would gain from killing someone is outweighed by the threat that society’s retribution would pose.

Outlawing gay marriage, stem cell research and roe vs wade has nothing to do with supporting any particular religion.

Yeah, that’s true – I think I mistakenly implied that such laws would be unconstitutional, which I didn’t necessarily mean. But the point is that the people who support outlawing those things, by far and by large, have “faith” – not any reasons based in fact – at the basis of their argument. Not all of them, but the vast majority of them.

Apparently, to be an atheist it means you must be pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage.

False. I actually know atheists who are pro-life, and some who don’t care about gay marriage.

Would I like it if Hindus gained that much political power and majority of the population? No, I wouldn’t. But if it happened, I do understand and accept that they can change the laws to reflect the morals of the community. They can even have the constitution changed (amended) to outlaw things or permit things.

But if they outlawed eating hamburgers, you do agree that it would be bloody ridiculous, don’t you? Of course it would – it would be a position that has no basis in any fact, only their faith.

PAboy57:

These are evil and dangerous people and show you just how bad things really are. The Lord will deal with them in the end.

Mwahahahahahahaha. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[reggieM]

The original idea is that self-interest keeps people from murdering. [actually, I think Myers isn’t getting at the root here – I think the thing that keeps most people from murdering is the fact that very few people actually feel like murdering] He was saying that it’s in your interest not to go around killing people. There aren’t going to be many situations where it’s in your interest to kill someone because any benefit you would gain from killing someone is outweighed by the threat that society’s retribution would pose.

That is an excellent point and you’re offering a more detailed explanation.
The first problem is just as you say, Myers is saying that it’s not in my self-interest to murder anyone. But the fact is, he doesn’t know what’s in my self-interest at all. When you turn it around, he said that “the only thing that is stopping us” is our self-interest. You’re right – he is assuming (arrogantly) that he knows what my self-interest is. All it takes is for me to say “my self-interest is in murdering someone today” – and Myers has completely justified that as a good reason to murder someone.

Again, that’s not exaggerating or coming up with something bizarre or new. It’s directly connected to atheistic-materialism. Myers is bold, but very clear on this. He is consistent with the atheistic view of life and its lack of meaning and purpose. He said it clearly – there are no moral standards.

The second problem is as you explain also. We might judge our self-interest to be “whatever I feel like doing”. That’s all it is. I agree with you, that most of us don’t feel like killing people, so we don’t. But again, all it takes is someone to say “I feel like murdering people today” – and that action is justified in Myers’ atheistic worldview.

Why not? We might say, someone will go to jail if they murder someone. Ok, but what if a very large group of atheists took over a government. Then there’s nobody to put them in jail. They then say “it’s in our self-interest to kill our enemies”. Or, “we really feel like killing the people who we don’t like”.
This is 100% consistent with atheism and there is nothing to stop it – because there would be no external, fixed moral standards to point to.
There would only be Darwinian laws or processes – and these fully permit mass murder.

But if they outlawed eating hamburgers, you do agree that it would be bloody ridiculous, don’t you? Of course it would – it would be a position that has no basis in any fact, only their faith.

My point is that we have to accept that people will legislate according to their beliefs. Atheists will do this and so will Christians. That fact does not justify the vulgar displays of hatred that this thread is talking about.

 

[AntiTheist]

He said it clearly – there are no moral standards.

Yes, and he’s correct – there’s no such thing as moral standards. However, there are such things as values – for example, normal, healthy people living in a society typically don’t suddenly value killing others, and if they have the urge to do so, most of them value their freedom more than the temporary benefit they might gain from committing a murder.

he is assuming (arrogantly) that he knows what my self-interest is.

It’s not arrogant to point out – correctly – that it’s not in your self-interest to go around killing people. You could say that it’s in your self-interest to do so, but it’s not. If you kill someone, you’re very likely to be caught, locked up, and punished. It’s not worth it.

Now maybe you might be able to delude yourself into thinking that it is worth it. Very well – that’s precisely the reason we lock murderers up to begin with.

all it takes is someone to say “I feel like murdering people today” – and that action is justified in Myers’ atheistic worldview.

No. This is the source of your confusion, so pay close attention to this point. Once you realize that there is no such thing as morality – only values – it becomes pointless to “justify” something. Can you show me a quote where Myers says that anything in one’s self-interest is “justified”? If I’m not mistaken, the notion of justification is absent from his ideas.

And indeed, there is no need for justification. There are only actions that people do and how we feel about those actions, all driven by values.

Why not? We might say, someone will go to jail if they murder someone. Ok, but what if a very large group of atheists took over a government. Then there’s nobody to put them in jail.

What? I just explained that all people – including atheists – have values. Most atheists don’t value living in a society where people are allowed to murder any more than most religious folks do.

It’s ludicrous to suggest that an atheist politician (and there’s at least one open atheist in Congress) would be in favor of repealing laws against murder. It’s pretty close to being one of the silliest things you could say.

This is 100% consistent with atheism and there is nothing to stop it – because there would be no external, fixed moral standards to point to.

What do you mean “nothing to stop it”? Our values stop it all the time.

And incidentally, there are indeed atheists who believe in morality. I disagree with them, but they certainly exist.

There would only be Darwinian laws or processes – and these fully permit mass murder.

Natural laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. They tell us how we got here, not what we should do.

My point is that we have to accept that people will legislate according to their beliefs. Atheists will do this and so will Christians. That fact does not justify the vulgar displays of hatred that this thread is talking about.

Well, obviously that will always happen, but I would prefer that people ground those beliefs in fact, and not articles of religious faith that are undemonstrable.

Clearly, none of us want a group of Hindus making it illegal to eat hamburgers. Why not? Because there’s no good reason for it, other than an article of faith. It would not be based on fact at all. I feel the same way about other faith-driven legislative attempts.

 

[matt1985]

I respect atheists, I know many who are nice people, but the “new atheist” movement as I will call it really ammounts to a low quality religion. I would put it in the same league as Scientology. If you don’t believe in Jesus, than there is no reason to spend your time making fun of him. To do so is just stupid. It doesn’t even serve their purpose.

Why don’t they hand out Orgin of the species on the street to people as they walk by?

 

[Andrew1983]

Is it me or do most atheists of today seem like die-hard communists?

Is there such thing as a right-wing atheist that subscribes to traditional American values with the exception of belief in a creator god? Or is this one of those things where I’ll find a unicorn first.

 

[AntiTheist]

Is it me or do most atheists of today seem like die-hard communists?

Communists? I have known a fairly large number of atheists in my life, and communicated with quite a few online, and not once have I ever met an atheist who espoused communist beliefs. Every single atheist I know thinks that capitalism is, while imperfect, the best system we have.

Now, atheists do tend to be liberal – maybe in your mind, anyone who’s not “right-wing” is a “communist,” but that’s a pretty warped use of the word “communist.”

For the record, there are indeed conservative atheists. I know a handful, some of whom are actually more prudish than some Christians I know!

 

[reggieM]

Now, atheists do tend to be liberal – maybe in your mind, anyone who’s not “right-wing” is a “communist,” but that’s a pretty warped use of the word “communist.”

For the record, there are indeed conservative atheists. I know a handful, some of whom are actually more prudish than some Christians I know!

I will bring it back to “atheistic values” that you mentioned before. These values can be completely the opposite for one atheist versus another. There is no reference point to determine whether these values are good or right or not.

PZ Myers says it is “only our self-interest” that causes us to choose one thing or another. It is in the self-interest of suicide-bombers to kill themselves and everyone – thus, this is justified in atheism.

It’s not arrogant to point out – correctly – that it’s not in your self-interest to go around killing people. You could say that it’s in your self-interest to do so, but it’s not. If you kill someone, you’re very likely to be caught, locked up, and punished. It’s not worth it.

Now maybe you might be able to delude yourself into thinking that it is worth it. Very well – that’s precisely the reason we lock murderers up to begin with.

Mr. Myers would be arrogant to claim that he knows what my self-interest is all about – since my self-interest belongs to me and not him.

However, he could say that “his self-interest” is opposed to mine and therefore he will lock me up for following a desire to kill people. But why is he right and not me? I think you give the answer here …

Most atheists don’t value living in a society where people are allowed to murder any more than most religious folks do.

I think this means that since most atheists are against murder, then it is not allowed. But atheistic values can be anything at all. They can be communist (as in the old Soviet Union) or capitalist. They can be prudish or hedonistic.

If the values are based on what the majority wants, then this justifies what various societies have as their value systems. It’s in the self-interest of a dictator to oppress people and throw them in jail if they don’t like it.

Or, when a majority votes that women should be whipped for leaving the house with their head uncovered – then this is justified also because “most people want it”.

Now you also said:

…normal, healthy people living in a society typically don’t suddenly value killing others

Well, this means that you judged what is “normal healthy people”. What if an atheist said that religious believers are “not normal or healthy”? This is exactly what some atheists say. What I’m getting at here is that we need some kind of standard – and atheism does not provide one.

 

[AntiTheist]

What I’m getting at here is that we need some kind of standard – and atheism does not provide one.

Of course it doesn’t because, as you just demonstrated yourself, atheism isn’t a philosophy or a collection of dogma or rules; it’s just a position on a single question, not a school of thought in the business of “justifying” or “condemning” things. In order to get a standard on which to justify or condemn things – i.e. in order to get values – you have to look at influences like culture, traditions, reason, empathy, politics, religion, and other things that inform values.

The communists, for example, took many of their values from a political ideology. The Islamic fascists you mention take many of their values from a religious ideology. The Nazis took many of their values from a racial ideology. Others, those of us here in America, for example, value individual liberty and freedom of thought – and these values sometimes lead us to oppose values around the world that are in conflict with them.

If the values are based on what the majority wants, then this justifies what various societies have as their value systems.

Well, first of all, values aren’t “based on” what the majority always wants – it’s much more complicated than that. The values of individuals can be in conflict with those of the majority, and this is why you get individuals disobeying laws in acts of “civil disobedience” or those writing letter campaigns to get laws changed or even violent protests. It’s not that people take a vote and then that’s it. It’s much more complicated than you’re trying to make it.

Second of all, this idea of “justification” is nowhere in my ideas – and I’m pretty sure it’s absent from Myers’ ideas as well. An action doesn’t become “justified” if the majority wants it – if the majority wants it, it simply becomes the law of that society, a law that some people’s values will lead them to accept and other people’s values will lead them to oppose. You yourself admitted that if a large number of Hindus gained power in America, you accept that they might pass laws that legislate their values (no more eating hamburgers). So there you go. Now if they did that, your values might lead you to oppose it (hopefully with a peaceful letter writing campaign and not some stupid violent act).

 

[rlg94086]

Of course it doesn’t because, as you just demonstrated yourself, atheism isn’t a philosophy or a collection of dogma or rules; it’s just a position on a single question, not a school of thought in the business of “justifying” or “condemning” things. In order to get a standard on which to justify or condemn things – i.e. in order to get values – you have to look at influences like culture, traditions, reason, empathy, politics, religion, and other things that inform values.

The communists, for example, took many of their values from a political ideology. The Islamic fascists you mention take many of their values from a religious ideology. The Nazis took many of their values from a racial ideology. Others, those of us here in America, for example, value individual liberty and freedom of thought – and these values sometimes lead us to oppose values around the world that are in conflict with them.

Well, first of all, values aren’t “based on” what the majority always wants – it’s much more complicated than that. The values of individuals can be in conflict with those of the majority, and this is why you get individuals disobeying laws in acts of “civil disobedience” or those writing letter campaigns to get laws changed or even violent protests. It’s not that people take a vote and then that’s it. It’s much more complicated than you’re trying to make it.

Second of all, this idea of “justification” is nowhere in my ideas – and I’m pretty sure it’s absent from Myers’ ideas as well. An action doesn’t become “justified” if the majority wants it – if the majority wants it, it simply becomes the law of that society, a law that some people’s values will lead them to accept and other people’s values will lead them to oppose. You yourself admitted that if a large number of Hindus gained power in America, you accept that they might pass laws that legislate their values (no more eating hamburgers). So there you go. Now if they did that, your values might lead you to oppose it (hopefully with a peaceful letter writing campaign and not some stupid violent act).

Are you in favor of or opposed to people passing legislation according to their values?

 

[reggieM]

Second of all, this idea of “justification” is nowhere in my ideas – and I’m pretty sure it’s absent from Myers’ ideas as well. An action doesn’t become “justified” if the majority wants it – if the majority wants it, it simply becomes the law of that society, a law that some people’s values will lead them to accept and other people’s values will lead them to oppose. You yourself admitted that if a large number of Hindus gained power in America, you accept that they might pass laws that legislate their values (no more eating hamburgers). So there you go. Now if they did that, your values might lead you to oppose it (hopefully with a peaceful letter writing campaign and not some stupid violent act).

I think this indicates that there shouldn’t be the problem that you mentioned at first – that people are legislating their religious views. They can legislate anything they want. There’s nothing within atheism to stop that or forbid it or oppose it. Individual atheists may like it or not – but it’s illogical for them, in the name of atheism, to get outraged because people did something for religious reasons.

If nothing can or needs to be justified, then religious people simply do whatever they do and that’s it.

As I see it, this shows a contradiction with the idea that atheists are upset because religious people want to legislate something. They shouldn’t be upset about that at all. There’s nothing to justify or condemn – it’s just people acting in their self-interest.

As for me, with Hindus outlawing hamburgers (or perhaps Jews and Muslims outlawing pork barbeque) – I oppose that based on a moral standard which I believe comes from God. It’s not just my self-interest, but it’s faith in a moral code that has been revealed by God.

So, if someone wants to claim that euthanasia should be permitted because the majority want it, then I would object because it goes against the law of God. Atheism removes that as a criteria for judgement. An atheist society would have to permit any human action if the majority supported it. Actually, even if the majority didn’t support it, if it was in a dictators self-interest then he could do whatever he wants no matter what the majority believed. In an atheistic world, there would be no fixed moral norms as a basis for objection.

 

[AntiTheist]

I think this indicates that there shouldn’t be the problem that you mentioned at first – that people are legislating their religious views. They can legislate anything they want. There’s nothing within atheism to stop that or forbid it or oppose it. Individual atheists may like it or not – but it’s illogical for them, in the name of atheism, to get outraged because people did something for religious reasons.

Ah, now I see where the confusion is.

No, it’s not “illogical” for an atheist to oppose people passing faith-based laws that affect an entire society. Now there are some atheists who don’t really care that the majority might try to impose religious restrictions on everybody – but I’m not one of them. I oppose such legislation, and I oppose it on the grounds of my own personal values, which come from a wide variety of sources, including reason.

I personally value laws that have good, rational reasons behind them, laws based in fact, not matters of faith that can’t be demonstrated and are not shared by all members of the population.

I recognize that those in power are able to legislate whatever rules they want, but I don’t value their passing certain kinds of legislation, and I don’t mind making my voice heard when legislation based on faith (and not fact) is proposed. It has less to do with my atheism than my personal values. A lot of atheists seem to feel the same way, but it has less to do with our atheism (our shared position on one single question) than on our similar personal values and desire to speak out.

In other words, the reason I’m against religious legislation is not because I believe that such things are “objectively wrong” and violate my “moral code” – I’m against it because I don’t like it. A lot of other people don’t like it, either, including some religious people who don’t think that everyone in a society needs to conform to the same standards of behavior as they do (For example, I know a few Christians who are against making gay marriage against the law, on the grounds that it’s not the job of the government to regulate actions that individual religions consider “sinful”).

It’s a matter of values.

If nothing can or needs to be justified, then religious people simply do whatever they do and that’s it.

Right. They do what they do, based on their values, and then I judge what they do and react to it based on my values. That’s precisely what I’m doing.

Maybe this will help: just because I don’t think there’s an objective “good” and “evil” doesn’t mean I stop having values that lead me to approve of things or disapprove of things. I’m perfectly capable of judging things, even though I acknowledge that there is no “objective moral” import to them.

You apparently think there needs to be “something within atheism” that gives me a basis for disliking things. There doesn’t. I’m a person, and I have values, quite apart from my atheism. My values lead me not to like some things. Laws passed without good reason are things I don’t like.

 

[Andrew1983]

Communists? I have known a fairly large number of atheists in my life, and communicated with quite a few online, and not once have I ever met an atheist who espoused communist beliefs. Every single atheist I know thinks that capitalism is, while imperfect, the best system we have.

Now, atheists do tend to be liberal – maybe in your mind, anyone who’s not “right-wing” is a “communist,” but that’s a pretty warped use of the word “communist.”

For the record, there are indeed conservative atheists. I know a handful, some of whom are actually more prudish than some Christians I know!

Honestly, many of the atheists I encounter online generally favor political views that embody in part if not whole, some form of communist ideology (henceforth why I said most, and not all).
*On a side note- what do you mean only right-wingers are anti-communist? That implies centrists and liberals are all for giant fascist nanny-states! joking.

Perhaps you’re more of an old-school atheist who doesn’t really have anything against the Christian sense of morality that’s been apart of this country since before it’s inception, other than not believing in a creator God. I don’t know enough about you personally or how you came to your conclusions, so forgive any interpreted presumption in throwing you in with the rest of the lot.

 

[AntiTheist]

Honestly, many of the atheists I encounter online generally favor political views that embody in part if not whole, some form of communist ideology (henceforth why I said most, and not all).

Well, you started with the assertion that most atheists seem to be “die-hard communists.” Now you’re saying that most seem to have views that are “in part if not whole” some “form” of “communist ideology.” That’s quite a watered-down revision.

I suspect that if I continued to interrogate what you mean by this, we would eventually come to the point that atheists tend to be left-of-center politically, whereas you tend to be right-of-center politically. I don’t think that this justifies calling anyone a “die-hard communist”…or any kind of “communist.” It’s just empty rhetoric that serves no purpose in an actual discussion of issues.

[Note: before anyone says it, I’m using “justifies” in the context of logical conclusions, not moral behavior]

the Christian sense of morality that’s been apart of this country since before it’s inception

You mean like slaughtering the Indians and owning slaves?

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

 

[Andrew1983]

You mean like slaughtering the Indians and owning slaves?

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Now, now, you darn well know that the Indians had it coming. I mean seriously, who told them that they could be here on our land before we got here?

In all seriousness though, I acknowledge the faults of men who have done some brutal things to others, however this extends well beyond Christianity, so the idea of slaughtering Indians and owning slaves predates the advent of Our Lord. Indians still fought with other Indians and slavery was used by every society, though the rules for governing slaves varied.

Well, you started with the assertion that most atheists seem to be “die-hard communists.” Now you’re saying that most seem to have views that are “in part if not whole” some “form” of “communist ideology.” That’s quite a watered-down revision.

Not at all. I said most atheists of today. I’m certainly not lumping in ALL atheists throughout history as being advocates of communism. However, by your admission, you state that atheists tend to be left-of-center. And what exactly, pray tell does the Left represent in today’s political arena? Typically, a nanny-state who cradle-to-graves everyone, amnesty, non-enforcement of the borders, universal health-care, massive social welfare programs, complete removal of any and all Christian symbolism despite the fact that culturally, America is littered with references to Christianity, nor do historical references establish a theocracy (should San Francisco be renamed because it is name after the Catholic Saint, Francis of Assisi?) They are vehemently pro-abortion because they value the quality of life over the sanctity of life. And last but not least, are in favor of the redistribution of the wealth, and nationalization of businesses in the form of “bailouts”.

Then consider that the current administration isn’t shy about having self-avowed communists and Mao supporters hanging around and all the leftists can do is make excuses and direct their outrage at the ones exposing this, you have to wonder if those claims that “liberals” and communists are one in the same might have a point.

If true, and coupled with your earlier statement that atheists tend to be left-of-center, then could you understand the perception that most atheists of today seem to be die-hard communists? I won’t say all because as you rightly pointed out, not all atheists are communists, however, all communists are atheists as per the Communist Manifesto (yes, I’ve heard of so-called “Christian Communism” but it’s not quite the same thing).

How about you, yourself. What do you believe?

 

[AntiTheist]

And what exactly, pray tell does the Left represent in today’s political arena?

So your claim is that anyone who is left-of-center is a “die-hard communist”?

You seem to be using a peculiar definition of “communist,” one that will not make your arguments very convincing to people who don’t already agree with you.

EDIT: If you must know, my personal politics are pretty typically liberal. I’m strongly in favor of capitalism because it works – unlike socialism – and I think it works best when it’s carefully and wisely regulated. I’m in favor of regulations on business, a progressive tax system in which the people who profit the most from our system contribute slightly more back into it, and a “safety net” for those people at the very bottom of the system.

I don’t know…does this make me a “die-hard communist” according to your definition?

 

[Andrew1983]

No, adopting one of those positions doesn’t make a person an out-and-out communist. Sharing a single belief that communists may have, doesn’t square you with them. Sharing multiple beliefs on the other hand might, depending upon how strongly one is attached, and the ratio to what views they are in agreement on and which ones they are not.

You’ve given a general statement that you support capitalism over socialism, but then go onto say that you support careful and wise regulations. Naturally, that can be open to interpretation. I would be more interested as to what specifically you have in mind. Are we talking about restrictions in trade, environmental laws, etc. or something else, such as anti-trust laws, and against fraud.

A Progressive tax system is a major tenet of communism; “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. This is clearly forced redistribution of wealth. That the money is then used to pay for services for the poor is also part of that philosophy. Whether that money actually gets to where it’s supposed to go before winding up in the greedy hands of corrupt politicians is something else.

Now, I know the counter to this will be along the lines of “Wait, you, a Christian, are telling me that helping to poor is bad?” To which the answer is no. Helping those who are less fortunate is a very positive and moral thing to do. It is NOT moral to force a charitable act to become mandatory through force or fear of force, for you are robbing that person the ability to make that choice. Of course allowing them that choice means opening up the possibility that they will choose poorly and not rightly. However, if they do choose rightly, then they will have truly contributed with an understanding of being generous and good to their fellow man. Anything else in this case would be a corruption of the intent.

If helping those who are less fortunate is core to your beliefs, and you want to see it through, it’s better to get involved in a charity of some sort (No, you don’t have to participate in any religious charity events), even if it’s only making a monetary contribution (I’d do research though. No sense in being scammed). With that understanding, I would NOT trust any government body with that money. Simply put, I’m not sure what’s worse, the incompetence or the corruption. Either way, I’m not into large federal/national governments.

So, are you a communist? As of right now, I can’t say with any certainty, though if my analysis thus far is correct, you seem to be moving in that direction.

 

[joannazenobia]

No, adopting one of those positions doesn’t make a person an out-and-out communist. Sharing a single belief that communists may have, doesn’t square you with them. Sharing multiple beliefs on the other hand might, depending upon how strongly one is attached, and the ratio to what views they are in agreement on and which ones they are not.

You’ve given a general statement that you support capitalism over socialism, but then go onto say that you support careful and wise regulations. Naturally, that can be open to interpretation. I would be more interested as to what specifically you have in mind. Are we talking about restrictions in trade, environmental laws, etc. or something else, such as anti-trust laws, and against fraud.

A Progressive tax system is a major tenet of communism; “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. This is clearly forced redistribution of wealth. That the money is then used to pay for services for the poor is also part of that philosophy. Whether that money actually gets to where it’s supposed to go before winding up in the greedy hands of corrupt politicians is something else.

Now, I know the counter to this will be along the lines of “Wait, you, a Christian, are telling me that helping to poor is bad?” To which the answer is no. Helping those who are less fortunate is a very positive and moral thing to do. It is NOT moral to force a charitable act to become mandatory through force or fear of force, for you are robbing that person the ability to make that choice. Of course allowing them that choice means opening up the possibility that they will choose poorly and not rightly. However, if they do choose rightly, then they will have truly contributed with an understanding of being generous and good to their fellow man. Anything else in this case would be a corruption of the intent.

If helping those who are less fortunate is core to your beliefs, and you want to see it through, it’s better to get involved in a charity of some sort (No, you don’t have to participate in any religious charity events), even if it’s only making a monetary contribution (I’d do research though. No sense in being scammed). With that understanding, I would NOT trust any government body with that money. Simply put, I’m not sure what’s worse, the incompetence or the corruption. Either way, I’m not into large federal/national governments.

So, are you a communist? As of right now, I can’t say with any certainty, though if my analysis thus far is correct, you seem to be moving in that direction.

I actually was born and raised in a Communist country were the people were predominantly Christian. It is a known fact that the secret police murdered priests who were preaching freedom, liberty to give people who desperatly needed hope. When they came to arrest your parents, they didn’t get a miranda, all you had was prayer that God would spare your parents from being killed.

From my point of view, being raised Catholic in a communist country, I can easily deduce that Communists “appeared” to be very anti-God. Whatever morals or values they had, they were not allowed to have their own or speak out against the whole for that matter, that the interest of the whole (sustaining an economy solely for the Soviet Union), was what was drilled into you. Freedom and Liberty…forget it. I never heard of America until my feet were standing on the tarmac. Love and Compassion appeared to be very absent except in the churches, and it was a very dark and dismal time for my family and it clearly reflected in my parents marriage. The motto was “you can get a hungry man to do anything”

Having said that…I don’t believe you are that kind of atheist at all having read this post, nor do I believe you truly know what a true communist really is like, and I’m talking “behind-the-iron-curtain” communist. True communists don’t care if you are atheists or Christian, they care if you follow the rules and protect their interest (china is a good example). I don’t believe that you would go out on a mission today to murder Catholics, nor do I believe most atheists in America would, yet in Communist countries that is exactly what is happening.

What this thread proves to me more than anything else is that humans all have a ‘natural law for good’, you clearly do too and it just doesn’t come out of thin air, there is no ‘value or moral gene’ in our human body, we just know it because we feel it.

Maybe its just me, but it seems that Atheists spend an enormous amount of effort trying to debunk Religious faith and very little effort on what us Christians call “ministries” to help the needy, poor, orphaned, widowed, sick, elderly, etc.

Our entire existence is based on one fact: to help Jesus with the poor, orphaned and widowed and from my understanding most ministries in the church that cater to the hungry and poor are actually very popular because they are run exclusively by volunteers and have nothing to do with the government and serve your local community.

Also, when you donate 10% of your income to the church, its not just because its in the bible, but because you can write it off on your taxes, thereby the goverment gets less of your money to saquander with.

 

[AntiTheist]

What this thread proves to me more than anything else is that humans all have a ‘natural law for good’, you clearly do too and it just doesn’t come out of thin air, there is no ‘value or moral gene’ in our human body, we just know it because we feel it.

You’re right that it doesn’t come “out of thin air,” but it’s not simply a matter of “we just know it because we feel it.”

Values come from a lot of places. A lot of them come from our training in society. You have to remember that values didn’t develop in a vacuum. We didn’t wake up one day and say, “You know what? I think today we’re going to value individuality and privacy of citizens.” Values like that developed over a long period of time, during which we had a chance to learn what worked best and what produced the kinds of societies we wanted to live in.

But it isn’t just a matter of “feeling” it because that’s what our parents taught us. Part of our values come from reason, from reason evaluating the values of society, from reason tempering our natural instincts, many of which prompt us to cooperate (which the reason can press into service while suppressing more violent natural urges).

Maybe its just me, but it seems that Atheists spend an enormous amount of effort trying to debunk Religious faith and very little effort on what us Christians call “ministries” to help the needy, poor, orphaned, widowed, sick, elderly, etc.

Well, remember that atheism isn’t an -ism, it’s not a “thing” or an organized “belief.” It’s just a position on a question. So when you encounter atheists, it’s usually in the context of having a religious discussion or debate. Very few atheists are going to wear an atheist badge when they volunteer to help out in their communities or donate to charity or whatever – because it’s not atheism that motivates them to do those things, but their values.

Andrew:

It is NOT moral to force a charitable act to become mandatory through force or fear of force, for you are robbing that person the ability to make that choice.

A progressive tax system doesn’t “force a charitable act” – it collects money that we use to fund the things that the government provides as services to everyone: libraries, schools, the fire department, sanitation, the police department, roads, bridges, etc.

The belief that people who benefit the most from the system should contribute slightly more back into the system is not “forc[ing] a charitable act,” nor is it related to the idea “from each according to his means, to each according to his need.” It’s nothing more than collecting the money we use to run our cooperative society.

Now, maybe you don’t agree that the ultra-rich should contribute a tiny bit more than the middle class. You’re entitled to hold that belief, but it’s completely counterproductive – not to mention false – to label anyone who doesn’t agree with you a “communist”