Atheism, Religion, and Crime

[j1akey]

reggieM:

This is an excellent and much more honest answer than we usually see – and that is appreciated (and admirable).

I think this can lead to a more worthwhile discussion following this point also.

Religious people tend to be happier – yes, and for the reason you give. They are cared for by an all-powerful being that loves them, etc. They have the prospect of eternal happiness.

Atheism, in contrast, would leave people more unhappy. But the reasons for this are important to consider.

Atheism does not accept that there is a loving God caring for people – there is no creator. Why does that yield more unhappiness?

There are a lot of reasons that seem very obvious to me. The most important is that “finding one’s own meaning” does not provide happiness – in the end, it’s an empty meaning. Additionally, whatever amount of love that one gets from other human beings – it is not sufficient for true, lasting happiness.

But I think the equally honest conclusion is that suicide is closely aligned (philosophically) with atheism. When there is no meaning, no reason to live, no reason to endure continued unhappiness, no one who can fully understand your inner struggles (as atheism concludes), and the 100% certainty that death will come upon everyone anyway – suicide is a logical and reasonable action.

The biggest questions I walk away with after reflecting on this is “what does atheism offer to people?” or “what attraction does atheism provide so that people would choose it”?

Probably the biggest attraction and advantage is that the atheist believes his actions will not be judged by God. So that provides a sort of freedom. But with that freedom is a lonely existence that is drained of ultimate meaning.

I’m not sure if you’re looking at the study that was done in 2004 regarding religion, atheism, and suicide but I think you’re taking the results out of context. Many depressed patients were studied with a mix of religious and non-religious people. I use this study becuase the VAST majority of suicides are the result of depression.

The study did indeed indicate that suicide attempts among non-believers were higher than that of people who believed in some sort of deity but it wasn’t because the religious depressed people were somehow happier than the non-religious depressed people. The main difference is that the people that believed in some sort of deity usually had more moral objections against suicide that non-believers did not have. There were NO DIFFERENCES between the level of hopelessness or depression between theists and atheists.

To say that an atheist are somehow less happy and because of that the logical conclusion is suicide is rediculous and just twists the findings.

Depression causes suicide, not atheism.

 

[Leela]

Is there a difference between not knowing that something is sinful and thinking that something is not sinful? In other words suppose two children grow up in a society that prohibits incest, but they do it anyway because they do not see anything wrong with it.

There may be instances where a person does not know that something is wrong, all the more so if the person has been taught all his life that something wrong is right.

However, the case you bring up suggests that incest is an act of rebellion against a morality that is clear-cut. To substitute one’s own judgment for that of God, or of society, is very risky business indeed. The substitution is most likely an act of defiance, or a desire to cover one’s sin by pretending that it is not sin. This is why some gay priests and bishops in the Episcopalian Church, for example, have defied the teaching of Scripture, by insisting that homosexual relations are good and to be blessed by the Church. If that isn’t rank moral relativism, I don’t know what is.

Such priests clearly do not believe that homosexuality is wrong. By your take it would seem that they are then not sinning.

Also, your use of relativism continues to just sound like a epithet for a moral position that you disagree with.

The same is true for Dr. Tiller, who unbelievably pretended to be a Christian all the while he was killing thousands of babies in the womb (and his Church let him pretend to be a member in good standing!). And it was more relativism when the killer of Dr. Tiller decided that cold blooded murder was defensible in order to stop cold-blooded murder.

Pretended? How do you know what he believed about the divinity of Jesus?

Again, I can’t tell what you mean by relativism here other than an epithet.

*It would seem that incest is not “absolutely” wrong in the usual sense of being wrong for all time and under all circumstances. *

Well, not exactly. Again, if one is conscious of committing a sin against nature, and against conscience, it is always and absolutely wrong, and never right. The act of wanton killing is always and everywhere wrong, and has been ever since God cautioned Cain against killing Abel before he did it.

On the other hand, the act of killing in self defense is not an act of wanton killing. The act may be the same, and the result may be the same, but the motive is entirely different. We should not confuse the act with the motive. This is not moral relativism. Wanton killing, wanton rape, wanton defiance of God is absolutely wrong and never justifiable. If you can think of a case where it is, then you have blasted the notion of absolute morality.

Wanton rape and wanton killing are indeed injustifiable since that is what wanton means. The fact remains that the church holds killing and sex to be justified under some circumstances and not in others which is the sort of thing that people like me get called relativists for saying.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Lust is a very common sin that is excused and joked-about. But I also suspect that it is a significant motivation for atheist belief.

Atheism is not a belief system. I’ve lost count of how many times i seen this explained, and it’s not a hard thing to grasp.

 

[juliamajor]

I’m not sure if you’re looking at the study that was done in 2004 regarding religion, atheism, and suicide but I think you’re taking the results out of context. Many depressed patients were studied with a mix of religious and non-religious people. I use this study becuase the VAST majority of suicides are the result of depression.

The study did indeed indicate that suicide attempts among non-believers were higher than that of people who believed in some sort of deity but it wasn’t because the religious depressed people were somehow happier than the non-religious depressed people. The main difference is that the people that believed in some sort of deity usually had more moral objections against suicide that non-believers did not have. There were NO DIFFERENCES between the level of hopelessness or depression between theists and atheists.

To say that an atheist are somehow less happy and because of that the logical conclusion is suicide is rediculous and just twists the findings.

Depression causes suicide, not atheism.

Absolutely correct-depression has little to do with religion or the lack of it.It’s brain disfunction and heredity.
there was a study done among the Amish in Pennsylvania tieing genes to suicide.TThey tracked a family line from europe to the New World via Amish records.Amish being a closed group were perfect to study.Every generation,every generation! had a t least one suicide .That is from around the 1600’s I believe, all the way up to the 20th century. Compelling evidence for heredity! I think the problem is that there are still some people who see depression and other mental illnesses as some kind of character flaw.What ignorance!

 

[reggieM]

The main difference is that the people that believed in some sort of deity usually had more moral objections against suicide that non-believers did not have.

That indicates an important difference between atheism and theism. There are fewer, if any, moral objections to suicide in atheism. This supports the view I raised earlier that atheism does not provide a sufficient (or in many cases any) arguments or reasons against choosing suicide.

 

[Oreoracle]

That indicates an important difference between atheism and theism. There are fewer, if any, moral objections to suicide in atheism. This supports the view I raised earlier that atheism does not provide a sufficient (or in many cases any) arguments or reasons against choosing suicide.

I will say this once: atheism is NOT an ethical system, so of course it doesn’t produce ethical arguments. There is no morality in atheism, but that doesn’t mean it rejects any kind of morality.

If someone says “I’m an atheist” the ONLY thing you can conclude about that person is that they don’t believe in a god (depending on the definition, atheism can also be the rejection of the existence of gods, but that is used less often). That’s all. There are no attachments. Atheism does not include any political, ethical, or metaphysical ideologies. I wish everyone would stop pretending that atheism and science are malicious entities that say this or that. One is a method, the other is a lack of belief. Neither of them says a thing.

 

[j1akey]

reggieM:

That indicates an important difference between atheism and theism. There are fewer, if any, moral objections to suicide in atheism.

Why would it? It doesn’t have a pre-packaged belief system in of itself.

However you also drew the conclusion that atheism leaves more people unhappy citing a higher suicide rate. The rates might be higher but it’s not because unhappy atheists are somehow more unhappy than unhappy theists.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I will say this once: atheism is NOT an ethical system, so of course it doesn’t produce ethical arguments. There is no morality in atheism, but that doesn’t mean it rejects any kind of morality.

If someone says “I’m an atheist” the ONLY thing you can conclude about that person is that they don’t believe in a god (depending on the definition, atheism can also be the rejection of the existence of gods, but that is used less often). That’s all. There are no attachments. Atheism does not include any political, ethical, or metaphysical ideologies. I wish everyone would stop pretending that atheism and science are malicious entities that say this or that. One is a method, the other is a lack of belief. Neither of them says a thing.

Exactly

When people are so blinded by dogma they can’t even be corrected on the meaning of a word, what hope is there to get through to them on things like evolution.

 

[Angel7]

I will say this once: atheism is NOT an ethical system, so of course it doesn’t produce ethical arguments. There is no morality in atheism, but that doesn’t mean it rejects any kind of morality.
If someone says “I’m an atheist” the ONLY thing you can conclude about that person is that they don’t believe in a god (depending on the definition, atheism can also be the rejection of the existence of gods, but that is used less often). That’s all. There are no attachments. Atheism does not include any political, ethical, or metaphysical ideologies. I wish everyone would stop pretending that atheism and science are malicious entities that say this or that. One is a method, the other is a lack of belief. Neither of them says a thing.

It has been confessed.
If you beleive in G-d you have a sense of Morality, if you believe in man, you have a sense of Desire, to do waht you please.

 

[j1akey]

Angel7:

If you beleive in G-d you have a sense of Morality, if you believe in man, you have a sense of Desire, to do waht you please.

So on what do you base your conclusions that because someone doesn’t believe in god they are not capable of morality? At least that’s what I got out of this comment but please let me know if I’m mis-reading it. Are you saying we can’t tell right from wrong because we don’t belief in God?

 

[Angel7]

So on what do you base your conclusions that because someone doesn’t believe in god they are not capable of morality? At least that’s what I got out of this comment but please let me know if I’m mis-reading it. Are you saying we can’t tell right from wrong because we don’t belief in God?

Well, where else would Morality Coem from, but G-d?
Wouldn’t it be he, that decides the right and wrong? Where did you get your source of Morality from? Moral Reletivism?

It was mentioned before, that those who commited Suicide more Often, were un-Religious people. Now I’m not saying anythign bad, it is a sad fact

But the Religious People held onto Life, Suicide is rejecting G-d’s gift of Life, if you don’t believe in G-d (sadly many do not ) you must admit, atleast we have a sense of preserving human life

 

[Oreoracle]

Alright, Angel. Let’s assume that God exists. How would he come to his ethical conclusions? He wouldn’t have the “moral compass” () as we do, because there would have been no one to design such a thing in him as he did with us. His ethics couldn’t be based on knowledge, since he created all that could be known in the first place (he would have had to have some reason for making the world as it is). It would seem that God bases his ethics on his own emotions, just as relativists, such as I, admit to doing. (Hume, of course, has already proven that ethics cannot be objective.)

 

[Leela]

Alright, Angel. Let’s assume that God exists. How would he come to his ethical conclusions? He wouldn’t have the “moral compass” () as we do, because there would have been no one to design such a thing in him as he did with us. His ethics couldn’t be based on knowledge, since he created all that could be known in the first place (he would have had to have some reason for making the world as it is). It would seem that God bases his ethics on his own emotions, just as relativists, such as I, admit to doing. (Hume, of course, has already proven that ethics cannot be objective.)

Have you ever thought of using objective to mean “things that are easy to get agreement about” and subjective to mean “things that are hard to get agreement about”? that’s pretty much how those words are used, right? If so, maybe we can all agree that values are sometimes easy to get agreement about and sometimes hard to get agreement about.

I’m making this suggestion to you because by calling yourself a subjectivist or a relativist you are buying into a language game where you will lose, since the language you are using presupposes that a God’s-Eye-View exists where “objectivity” can have the sort of metaohysical meaning that your opponents in debate would like it to have.

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

If someone says “I’m an atheist” the ONLY thing you can conclude about that person is that they don’t believe in a god (depending on the definition, atheism can also be the rejection of the existence of gods, but that is used less often).

I think you confused the issue in the very attempt of trying to simplify it. You state “depending on the definition …” while you were attempting to give the ultimate definition. Clearly, there is more than one way to look at it.

When a person says that they do not believe in “a god” – what does that mean?
What follows logically from the lack of belief in “a god”?
What are the necessary conclusions that follow about the afterlife, creation, origin of morality, ultimate justice after death, existence of the supernatural, forgiveness (and possiblity) of sin …?

When a person says that he does not believe in the law of gravity – is that all you can say about the person’s belief? Or doesn’t the lack of that belief lead to many other logical conclusions about what happens when the person jumps off of a bridge?

When a person says that he does not believe in the authority of any government to bind him to any law – what does that mean in practice? Are there any necessary, logical conclusions that follow – or are we limited to saying “he doesn’t believe in any governmental authority at all” and this means nothing more?

When a person says that he does not believe in God, then it follows logically that the person cannot believe in sin, since sin is an offense against God. The person does not believe that forgiveness of sin is necessary either – since only God can forgive sins. The person does not believe that justice can be done ultimately for crimes that go unpunished on earth – because only God can bring justice in the afterlife. The person must necessarily believe that the only pleasures and happiness that can be obtained by a person are limited to what can be obtained in this life – before one dies. If you do not gain the pleasure now, you will never have it. Additionally, the person must believe that all of the work, knowledge, love, desire and aspirations that are found in this life are totally lost forever upon death.

So, when the atheist experiences guilt, or that there is some justice for those who are dead, or refrains from some pleasures or argues that life, even in terrible circumstances, is preferrable to suicide – this is illogical.

 

[reggieM]

You’re right, THERE IS NOTHING IN ATHEISM. Atheism is nothing. There is no atheistic doctrine, there is no book of atheism, there are no atheistic dogmas or ideas. Atheism is not a religion, it is an idea. It’s the idea that humans came to be by natural causes, instead of magically created by a deity.

An atheist has responsibility to respect the law. A Christian has responsibility to respect the law. It doesn’t matter what religion you are, you aren’t allowed to act in whatever way suits you without any consequences.

Interesting claim on the same theme (I only had a chance to read way back in the thread – sorry for unanwered questions there).

Notice this atheist making claims about responsibility and moral requirements while at the same time denying that there is any ultimate source for morality.

“You aren’t allowed …” – an interesting turn of phrase. Only an “allower” can “allow” you. What entity or person does this allowing?

 

[Oreoracle]

Have you ever thought of using objective to mean “things that are easy to get agreement about” and subjective to mean “things that are hard to get agreement about”?

I have to admit, I’m shocked. You would have me use faulty definitions just to make debate easier? I appreciate it, but I would rather fight a tough crowd than feign illiteracy to please them.

that’s pretty much how those words are used, right? If so, maybe we can all agree that values are sometimes easy to get agreement about and sometimes hard to get agreement about.

Concepts and sensations multiple subjects experience are said to be “intersubjective.” Using this word is much better than misusing “objective.” You and I both know that objective means “independent of perception.” It should stay that way. Do you want people to misuse objective just as they do “atheist?”

I’m making this suggestion to you because by calling yourself a subjectivist or a relativist you are buying into a language game where you will lose, since the language you are using presupposes that a God’s-Eye-View exists where “objectivity” can have the sort of metaohysical meaning that your opponents in debate would like it to have.

Thanks, but I think such definitions would only serve to obfuscate the discussion even more. If they really want to debate and reason with others, they’ll use words properly. If they can’t be corrected, it’s not worth the effort.

 

[Oreoracle]

Reggie, Reggie, Reggie…after reading this post, I’m thinking that you need to get out more and actually learn about the beliefs of others. There’s no need to view everything from the Catholic perspective only.

I think you confused the issue in the very attempt of trying to simplify it. You state “depending on the definition …” while you were attempting to give the ultimate definition. Clearly, there is more than one way to look at it.

The definition we were using in this thread is not affected by your criticisms, since it is not a belief. (It doesn’t assert the existence or non-existence of a god.)

When a person says that they do not believe in “a god” – what does that mean?

There is no universal definition of “god” but many religions craft their own definitions. Usually a god is a supernatural, intelligent, and sentient being that is responsible for the creation or tending of an aspect of the universe. I would guess that not believing in a god would mean that a person is not inspired by their emotions or philosophical musings enough to ever even consider such a thing.

What follows logically from the lack of belief in “a god”?

Again, since there is no universal definition of “god” it depends on the god in question (and the plausibility of his existence).

What are the necessary conclusions that follow about the afterlife, creation, origin of morality, ultimate justice after death, existence of the supernatural…

There are people who believe in all of these things without holding a belief in a god. Please try again.

When a person says that he does not believe in the law of gravity – is that all you can say about the person’s belief? Or doesn’t the lack of that belief lead to many other logical conclusions about what happens when the person jumps off of a bridge?

The law of gravity and the notion of God are in two completely different categories. Lacking belief in a god doesn’t indicate that a person is more or less knowledgeable, rational, or moral.

When a person says that he does not believe in God, then it follows logically that the person cannot believe in sin, since sin is an offense against God. The person does not believe that forgiveness of sin is necessary either – since only God can forgive sins. The person does not believe that justice can be done ultimately for crimes that go unpunished on earth – because only God can bring justice in the afterlife. The person must necessarily believe that the only pleasures and happiness that can be obtained by a person are limited to what can be obtained in this life – before one dies. If you do not gain the pleasure now, you will never have it. Additionally, the person must believe that all of the work, knowledge, love, desire and aspirations that are found in this life are totally lost forever upon death.

Are you done with your emotional appeal?

 

[Leela]

I have to admit, I’m shocked. You would have me use faulty definitions just to make debate easier? I appreciate it, but I would rather fight a tough crowd than feign illiteracy to please them.

Rather than be shocked, you might consider that I may not actually be asking you to “feign illiteracy.” Especially since that is not what I’m doing.

Concepts and sensations multiple subjects experience are said to be “intersubjective.” Using this word is much better than misusing “objective.” You and I both know that objective means “independent of perception.” It should stay that way. Do you want people to misuse objective just as they do “atheist?”

Intersubjectivity is a way of describing objective and subjective to refer to degrees of intersubjective agreement. As for objective as “independent of perception,” those who have dropped the idea of a God that stands outside of the universe to ensure that some things are true generally can’t imagine what a description that is “independent of perception” could be like anymore than we can imagine a perception that is independent of a perceiver or a description that is independent of a describer.

Pragmatically, objective then amounts to situations where all inquirers are likely to agree, and subjective amounts to situations where inquirers frequently disagree. We don’t need to keep the idea of a God’s-Eye-View or a perspectiveless perspective to make use of these words, and I can’t see what is “faulty” about this way of describing these terms. I’m just suggesting that you’ll have a hard time arguing against belief in God when you take the God’s-Eye-View for granted.

I hate to see nonbelievers still treat Reason, Truth, Human Nature, Reality, etc as replacement gods rather than continuing the enlightenment project of de-devinizing our thinking. But you seem fairly hostile to what I’m suggesting to you, so I won’t pursue it any further unless you ask.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

In fact, if I can commandeer the company whenever I like, you never really owned it in the first place. Similarly, if God can revoke my power and make it his own as he pleases, the power or ‘gift’ was never mine to begin with. It’s like your relative giving you a present during Christmas and saying they can take it back whenever they want.

All that is true but it does not show God cannot share His power.

He chooses not to do so because it would defeat the purpose of sharing His power - which is to enable us to make our own decisions rather than be cogs in the universal machine.
Agreed. This is his choice, however, and not a restriction of his power. Choosing to only eat vegetables does not mean that I am limited to eating vegetables.

It does mean a restriction of His power to the extent that He chooses not to control our choices or decisions.

If God removes his own omnipotence (making his infinite power finite) I don’t see how he would have the means to restore his infinite power.

I don’t really know whether God’s power-sharing is absolute or conditional but it doesn’t affect the issue of His power to relinquish some of his power.

But saying that nothing can spontaneously become something makes this axiom forfeit.

We are not saying “nothing can spontaneously become something” but “God created the universe”. Neither you nor I can understand how He did this because neither you nor I are God. He is not subject to human categories and any term we use to describe Him is analogous rather than literally true. When we say “God exists”, for example, “exists” does not mean the same as it does when we say “things exist” because God exists necessarily. He cannot not exist, begin to exist or cease to exist because He is the Source of existence. Similarly we have no experience of creating things out of thin air. Yet that does not mean it is impossible for God to do so. Our lack of experience of something merely indicates that there are limits to our knowledge and understanding. It is absurd to think God must conform to our expectations or rules. We can apply the principle of non-contradiction to the nature of God, e.g. it is impossible for God to exist and not to exist. But we cannot fully understand His attributes, e.g. what creativity or omnipotence entails.

I think we should deal with omnipotence in another thread as it’s remote from the topic of the OP. My last point was that both atheism and religion can become motives for crime. Our real beliefs are revealed in the extent to which we are motivated by love for others. I want to add that fear is not always a bad thing. If we warn people about the dangers of taking drugs and they become afraid of the possibility of becoming addicted it is better than letting them learn the hard way - when it is too late… Similarly if we warn them there is good reason to believe in cosmic justice - that we all receive exactly what we deserve after we die it is an incentive to respect the rights of others. Fear of the consequences shouldn’t be the main motive for doing what is right but we have to be realistic and utilise it judiciously …

 

[Angel7]

Alright, Angel. Let’s assume that God exists. How would he come to his ethical conclusions? He wouldn’t have the “moral compass” () as we do, because there would have been no one to design such a thing in him as he did with us. His ethics couldn’t be based on knowledge, since he created all that could be known in the first place (he would have had to have some reason for making the world as it is). It would seem that God bases his ethics on his own emotions, just as relativists, such as I, admit to doing. (Hume, of course, has already proven that ethics cannot be objective.)

G-d knows what is right on wrong, based on what Brings us Closer and Further away from him.
He created in our hearts The Basics of the 10 Commandments, known as Natural law (murder is naturally wrong)

G-d created us for us to be with him.
Thus G-d is our End, he Created us, he is our End, we are supposed to be in G-d’s kingdom forever That is our purpose.
So naturally Sin (which leads us away from G-d) would lead us away from our true end, our purpose, Sin is wrong,

G-d loved us First. He loved us when he thought of creating us.
When he created us with FREE WILL, he knew also, that some souls would choose to not love him back

Because if we didn’t have free will. It wouldn’t be love. We would be Robots.

Sin falls into 7 Categories (7 deadly sins) (I heard the Church made an Extra 7 deadly sins, bringing it to 14? Correct me if I’m wrong)

Wrath (Blinded by Hate/Anger/Malice and Revenge, It is very (Directly) opposed to Charity, one of the 3 theological virtues (faith, hope, charity) and a refusal to forgive when asked for pardon, (being merciless)

Pride (Obsessive love of SELF over G-d (This is what lead the devil and the 1/3 of the Angels to Leave heaven, they desired Self over G-d, Pride is a very dangerous)

Sloth (Being very Lazy when it comes to spirtuality “Acadia” to a point where you actually avoid the Church and Goodnes, because you are to lazy to get involved, and un willing to work.)Despair / Sorrow (Being very depressed of your salvation, despairng over the Gift of Salvation / Eternal life, etc… something similar)

Gluttony (Obssesion of Food over G-d, the man’s belly becomes their G-d…

Lust (Sins of sexual nature and desire, Pornography, Masturbation, Misuse of G-ds gift of Procreation for pleasure, and self gratification. Sins of the Flesh, and Obsessive love of the Flesh over G-d.)

Envy (Desparing the Good Fortune of Others, wishing Evil to others, Coveting.)

Greed (Excessive love of Earthly material things, wealth.)

All Sins fall into these categories of sin.

There are 7 Heavenly Virtues that oppose these Categories of sin.

Cardinal Prudence proper judgment of reasons for action with regard to appropriateness in a context
Cardinal Justice proper judgment regarding individual human interests, rights and desserts
Cardinal **Restraint or Temperance **practicing self-control, abstention, and moderation
Cardinal **Courage or Fortitude **forbearance, endurance, and ability to confront fear and uncertainty, or intimidation
*Theological *Faith steadfastness in belief
Theological Hope desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit
*Theological ***Love or Charity **selfless, unconditional, and voluntary loving-kindness

Notice how the 7 sins seeks Personal Gains, this is what sin is.
A desire to rebell agaisnt G-d, and to serve ourselves, then our Heavenly Father.