Atheism more moral?

[Charlemagne_II]

Hooding Trees

Exactly.* It is not hard to see why atheism increases with education.** As harsh as it sound so many people religious beliefs are contingent on lack of education/lack of intelligence. *

Very poor logic here. According to what you have just said, Einstein should have been the ultimate atheist, since he was highly educated in science and math. He was not an atheist. He repudiated atheism on several occasions. Here is one:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

 

[buffalo]

Hooding Trees

Exactly.* It is not hard to see why atheism increases with education.*** As harsh as it sound so many people religious beliefs are contingent on lack of education/lack of intelligence.

Very poor logic here. According to what you have just said, Einstein should have been the ultimate atheist, since he was highly educated in science and math. He was not an atheist. He repudiated atheism on several occasions. Here is one:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

I wonder how many of the “higher educated” have taken in depth courses in philosophy?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist
*
Similarly, atrocities committed by “atheist regimes” were driven not by atheism but by specific political ideologies – and while those ideologies are consistent with atheism, it’s a logical error to say that atheism leads to them. Atheism is also consistent with the decision to eat a banana, but atheism doesn’t “lead to eating bananas.”*

Ah, where to begin?

I think you are a bit confused. Nazism and Communism and the tyrannies resulting from them were led by atheists who sought to impose their godless morality on the world.

Hitler: “The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.”

Stalin: “We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

Mao: “Religion is poison.”

None of these men was religious, and they all wreaked havoc upon the world. Hitler attacked the Jews first, then the Catholics, and finally the Protestants who dared to oppose him.

So what is there in these records of atrocities that would lead anyone to believe that the world would be a better place if everyone was an atheist?

In other words, if men are so bad* with* religion, how much worse they could be without it!!!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

buffalo

*I wonder how many of the “higher educated” have taken in depth courses in philosophy? *

I have met some really bright atheists, but the one thing most of them seem to have in common is that they became atheists in their teen years, before they had a chance to really grow into the knowledge of God.

 

[buffalo]

buffalo

*I wonder how many of the “higher educated” have taken in depth courses in philosophy? *

I have met some really bright atheists, but the one thing most of them seem to have in common is that they became atheists in their teen years, before they had a chance to really grow into the knowledge of God.

Yes - what I find most striking in conversations with atheists is their actual lack of education in history, philosophy and metaphysics. The schools concentrate on math and science which is very detrimental. They need more, but then again many schools have an agenda now don’t they?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

buffalo

*many schools have an agenda now don’t they? *

An agenda that won’t quit … even the Catholic schools have been infiltrated by the Enemy. You know, the atheist in the red suit and pitchfork … the one who in all creation is most “without God.” :bigyikes:

 

[The_Catholic]

Give me a break. All the atheists do here is challenge. Give me evidence and I will believe. St Paul tells us to test all things. There is a lot of energy spent trying to knock down God, to no avail after so many years. At least the atheists past had an intellectual foundation, long proven wrong. The new atheists lack that and are just shrill.

The new atheists, sad to say, are cry babies, at least those I encounter, always always bringing up nothing but the “horrors” of the old testament, yet never touch upon the beattitudes of Christ.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The new atheists, sad to say, are cry babies, at least those I encounter,

It isn’t just that they cry about us, it’s that they can’t laugh at themselves.

To hear them talk, universal atheism would usher in universal utopia. Yet they cannot point to one grand accomplishment of atheism, individual or collective, down through the ages.

That makes all their claims a joke … a self deprecating joke … but I don’t hear them laughing.

 

[LittleSoldier]

That whole G-d thingy, the dash, it’s a little unnecessary no? I mean, I know your spelling the word God, except your substituting an ’ O ’ with a dash. Your still spelling God, you’re just choosing to spell it with a dash, instead of an O. If you were really committed to not spelling Gods name, why would you do the following?

’ I just love my ___ , he’s the best ___ in the whole world. ___ bless everyone! ’

You know what? I have to agree with you about the “G-d” thing. I don’t want to tell a person how to spell God, but I admit I cringe every time I see “G-d.” Wait, I meant to type I adm-t I cr-n-e eve-y t-me I s-e “G-d.” There, that’s bet–r!

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[LittleSoldier]

Hooding Trees

Exactly.* It is not hard to see why atheism increases with education.*** As harsh as it sound so many people religious beliefs are contingent on lack of education/lack of intelligence.

Very poor logic here. According to what you have just said, Einstein should have been the ultimate atheist, since he was highly educated in science and math. He was not an atheist. He repudiated atheism on several occasions. Here is one:

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

Thank you for that quote from Einstein. I liked it so much I copied and pasted it in my “Quotations” file.

*Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

St. Francis, please pray for all unwanted and hurt animals.*

 

[AntiTheist]

I think you are a bit confused. Nazism and Communism and the tyrannies resulting from them were led by atheists who sought to impose their godless morality on the world.

Well, apart from the fact that Hitler was not an atheist (at the very least, he believed in some kind of supernatural force or “destiny” – at the very most, by some accounts, he considered himself a faithful Christian or servant of God), I think it is you who are quite confused.

Nazism and Communism are political ideologies. They are consistent with atheism, but they don’t derive from atheism. That’s a very important point that you have not grasped. You can’t go from lack of belief to action, but you can go from belief (political ideology) to action. The fact that the belief may or may not be consistent with atheism is irrelevant to this point.

None of these men was religious, and they all wreaked havoc upon the world.

Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches – their actions are consistent with the wearing of mustaches. Does this mean that wearing a mustache leads to atrocity?

Again, there’s a huge difference between their actions being consistent with mustaches and being caused by mustaches. Surely you can see this.

So what is there in these records of atrocities that would lead anyone to believe that the world would be a better place if everyone was an atheist?

I don’t think anyone has said such a stupid thing, but if someone has – and I admit I haven’t looked back at the thread – I would point out how stupid a thing that is to say.

I do think that removing religion from the world would reduce conflict in some areas, but there’s no guarantee that people wouldn’t seize on some other difference to fight with each other.

People are people – and they’ll still do the dumb things that people do no matter what belief or lack thereof that they all profess.

Now I’m serious, man: are you actually incapable of grasping the point I made above in this thread? Do you understand the distinction between “consistent with” and “caused by”?

It’s vital to understanding the issue, and my suspicion is that you do not understand.

 

[Betterave]

I do not claim knowledge about the which is not demonstrable/verifiable. I do not form beliefs without verifiable evidence. What would you like me to defend?

Dude, you claimed to understand something: “i understand why the uneducated and people with an IQ of 95 believe in god” - remember? How was my question unclear? What is your understanding? (You don’t have to defend it until you tell us what it is, although the relating of your view may obviously include a defense against anticipated objections (if you happen to have thought ahead)!)

 

[Betterave]

Since I’m such a nice person, I’m going to give you a useful lesson in communicating with others.

When you want someone to respond to something you’ve said, you actually have to clearly and directly state what it is that you mean. You can’t just assume that others will perfectly infer your meaning.

You’re such a something, that’s for sure! I asked you a question and I did this because I wanted you to respond to what I said by actually *thinking *about it and trying to understand it - is that too hard for you?

Now I can take some guesses as to what you’re trying to say, but I’m not going to because I think it will be a useful exercise for you to restate the above as a claim that clearly and logically moves from point to point.

I’ll get you started: you seem to be suggesting that the entirety of the Bible is not a “mature expression of theological truths.” You can start by explaining exactly what that means, which parts of the Bible are less “mature” than others, and how you tell. Is it simply chronological (“it gets more mature as it goes on”) or is there some other standard you use? How do you know that your standard is correct? (for example, how do you know that it doesn’t get less mature as it goes on or that there aren’t places in the middle somewhere that are much more mature than others?)

Good luck in composing this exercise.

I’ve already answered your question. Please reread what I wrote and try to understand how (and try not to approach it with your typical ready-made sophomoric objections in the front of your mind). Get back to me if you can’t figure it out.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

Nazism and Communism are political ideologies. They are consistent with atheism, but they don’t derive from atheism. That’s a very important point that you have not grasped.

I grasp it perfectly well. You admit they are consistent with atheism. I say those ideologies embraced atheism. You obviously don’t know your history. Christianity did not embrace either Nazism or Communism. both ideologies were forced upon the world by atheistic bullies with guns in their hands.

It’s too bad you don’t read history books or do any kind of research that would show you really know what you are talking about.

I repeat. Hitler rejected Christianity and sent many Christians to prison or execution. Nowhere on record does it show that he persecuted atheists. On the contrary, when the Nietzsche Archives were dedicated, Hitler showed up for the ceremony and was photographed admiring a bust of Hitler. In case you don’t know this either, Nietzsche was an atheist. What would a Christian be doing honoring the dedication of Archives built to memorialize the most famous atheist in history?

Read some books. Learn some history. Stop getting everything you know from atheistic websites!

econ161.berkeley.edu/tceh/Nietzsche.html

 

[AntiTheist]

I grasp it perfectly well.

You don’t – you’ve missed my point again.

You admit they are consistent with atheism. I say those ideologies embraced atheism.

Let’s use Communism as an example. Communism, as it manifested in the USSR was an ideology that was anti-religion.

As such, it is consistent with atheism (the lack of belief in gods).

Atrocities committed in the name of Communism can be attributed to Communism – to the anti-religious ideology that motivated the actions, not to atheism itself.

It’s exactly the same as the example I gave a few posts ago about an atheist church-arsonist – his actions are motivated not by atheism, but by his dumb anti-religion ideas.

You seem to think that atheism = anti-religion, but it doesn’t. You’re really, really confused, and it’s kind of painful to see.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Dude, you claimed to understand something: “i understand why the uneducated and people with an IQ of 95 believe in god” - remember? How was my question unclear? What is your understanding? (You don’t have to defend it until you tell us what it is, although the relating of your view may obviously include a defense against anticipated objections (if you happen to have thought ahead)!)

Oh right now i get you. Lots of reasons. Not understanding processes, lack of critical analysis skills, ignorance in regard to processes that are actually understood etc.

 

[Betterave]

Well, apart from the fact that Hitler was not an atheist (at the very least, he believed in some kind of supernatural force or “destiny” – at the very most, by some accounts, he considered himself a faithful Christian or servant of God), I think it is you who are quite confused.

Nazism and Communism are political ideologies. They are consistent with atheism, but they don’t derive from atheism. That’s a very important point that you have not grasped. You can’t go from lack of belief to action, but you can go from belief (political ideology) to action. The fact that the belief may or may not be consistent with atheism is irrelevant to this point.

Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches – their actions are consistent with the wearing of mustaches. Does this mean that wearing a mustache leads to atrocity?

Again, there’s a huge difference between their actions being consistent with mustaches and being caused by mustaches. Surely you can see this.

I don’t think anyone has said such a stupid thing, but if someone has – and I admit I haven’t looked back at the thread – I would point out how stupid a thing that is to say.

I do think that removing religion from the world would reduce conflict in some areas, but there’s no guarantee that people wouldn’t seize on some other difference to fight with each other.

People are people – and they’ll still do the dumb things that people do no matter what belief or lack thereof that they all profess.

Now I’m serious, man: are you actually incapable of grasping the point I made above in this thread? Do you understand the distinction between “consistent with” and “caused by”?

It’s vital to understanding the issue, and my suspicion is that you do not understand.

I’m really not too interested in this particular argument you’re having, but the general methodological point you raise bears clarifying. Beliefs don’t *strictly *speaking ‘cause’ other beliefs, but, speaking loosely, they do. If belief A is *inconsistent *with belief B, logically (and only logically), a belief in A will cause the belief not-B. If not-A replaces belief A and not-A is *consistent *with B, not-A does not *sufficiently *cause a belief in B, but it *may *be justifiably regarded as a contributing cause to such a belief.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

I grasp it perfectly well.

You clearly do not, for AntiTheist has explained this to you countless times and you are still unable to grasp it…

***"Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches – their actions are consistent with the wearing of mustaches. Does this mean that wearing a mustache leads to atrocity?

Again, there’s a huge difference between their actions being consistent with mustaches and being caused by mustaches. Surely you can see this."***

 

[Betterave]

Oh right now i get you. Lots of reasons. Not understanding processes, lack of critical analysis skills, ignorance in regard to processes that are actually understood etc.

So your argument is: people with IQ less than 95 do not understand processes, lack critical analysis skills, are ignorant in regard to processes that are actually understood, etc.; therefore, they believe in God? (lol)

 

[Betterave]

You clearly do not, for AntiTheist has explained this to you countless times and you are still unable to grasp it…

***"Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches – their actions are consistent with the wearing of mustaches. Does this mean that wearing a mustache leads to atrocity?

Again, there’s a huge difference between their actions being consistent with mustaches and being caused by mustaches. Surely you can see this."***

See my post 156. *You *don’t understand the nature of the argument here.