Atheism, Religion, and Crime

[hippyprincess]

I’m aware that I’m a day late and a dollar short, but I would still like to reply to the question posed by the OP.

I believe that religion, an a large scale, is a negative thing.

Look at the big picture; wars have been fought, people have been murdered by the thousands, countries have been split in two. It’s undeniable that religion has caused much bloodshed throughout history. Many wars and murders have occurred in the name of religion.

However, no wars have ever been fought in the name of atheism. Atheism is not prompting men to suicide bomb trains, atheism is not torturing people who don’t believe what they do. Historically speaking, atheism has been far less harmful and murderous than theism.

I do think religion can be a good for certain people. If they want to do charitable things because they were inspired by their religion, that’s a wonderful thing. But theism isn’t the sole thing that inspires people to be charitable.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Ok, but the challenge is to explain to the suicidal person what the purpose is and why the person should care about anything. You may have found some personal meaning, but this does nothing for the person who finds no meaning and wants to kill himself.

This is a part of atheism - it cannot propose universal meaning and purpose to life in general. As in your situation, when counselling a suicidal person, I don’t think you would tell that person that you are the most important person in existence (thus reducing the suicidal person’s value in the process).

But if there is no God, the best we can do is lie to them (at least regarding God-given purpose). Your lie might seem more persuasive, but it would be a lie nonetheless. I don’t adopt a worldview based on my ability to comfort suicidal people, I do it based on what I think is true. But based on my experience, sometimes it can have a bigger effect on someone contemplating suicide if you tell them you love them and tell them how much they mean to you than if you tell them that God has a purpose for them.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I’m aware that I’m a day late and a dollar short, but I would still like to reply to the question posed by the OP.

I believe that religion, an a large scale, is a negative thing.

Look at the big picture; wars have been fought, people have been murdered by the thousands, countries have been split in two. It’s undeniable that religion has caused much bloodshed throughout history. Many wars and murders have occurred in the name of religion.

However, no wars have ever been fought in the name of atheism. Atheism is not prompting men to suicide bomb trains, atheism is not torturing people who don’t believe what they do. Historically speaking, atheism has been far less harmful and murderous than theism.

I do think religion can be a good for certain people. If they want to do charitable things because they were inspired by their religion, that’s a wonderful thing. But theism isn’t the sole thing that inspires people to be charitable.

Have any wars been fought in the name of theism? Wars have been fought in the name of atheistic communist worldviews as well as Christian theistic worldviews. You can’t tar all of religion based on the crimes of people of certain religions any more than you can tar all atheists based on the crimes of people with certain atheistic worldviews.

 

[hippyprincess]

Have any wars been fought in the name of theism?

Yes; The Crusades, The 30 Years War, etc.
And not just wars, but battles and conquests; the Arab Conquests of Spain, Spanish Invasion of Protestant England, Conquering of the Aztecs, etc.

Every time a Muslim suicide bomber is about to die, he shouts “Allah akbah! (God is great).” People are murdered in the name of theism, safe to say.

Wars have been fought in the name of atheistic communist worldviews as well as Christian theistic worldviews.

No. You’re confusing “wars fought by atheists” and “wars fought in the name of atheism.” For example, Stalin was an atheist, yes. But he did not commit atrocities in the NAME of atheism, he committed atrocities because he was an evil man. There is nothing about atheism that necessarily indicates murder and genocide.

Contrasted with the Inquisition, the atrocities were a direct result of the church doctrine, to “purge” society of anything heretical. This was certainly driven by their Christian faith.

You can’t tar all of religion based on the crimes of people of certain religions any more than you can tar all atheists based on the crimes of people with certain atheistic worldviews.

That isn’t at all what I’m doing. There are evil atheists, there are evil Christians, there are evil Muslims, and evil Buddhists. I’m simply saying that religion drives people to do bad things, while atheism does not.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Yes; The Crusades, The 30 Years War, etc.
And not just wars, but battles and conquests; the Arab Conquests of Spain, Spanish Invasion of Protestant England, Conquering of the Aztecs, etc.

Every time a Muslim suicide bomber is about to die, he shouts “Allah akbah! (God is great).” People are murdered in the name of theism, safe to say.

There are undoubtedly religious motivations for war and suicide bombers. My point was that there is no way to get from the belief that there is some sort of God, to the belief that you should attack someone. People do not fight because of bare theism; they fight because of their religious views which encompass a lot more than bare theism.

No. You’re confusing “wars fought by atheists” and “wars fought in the name of atheism.” For example, Stalin was an atheist, yes. But he did not commit atrocities in the NAME of atheism, he committed atrocities because he was an evil man. There is nothing about atheism that necessarily indicates murder and genocide.

I do not believe there have been any wars fought in the name of atheism. But I similarly don’t think there have been any wars fought in the name of theism. People with certain moral beliefs may attack others because of those beliefs, regardless of whether those beliefs are an extension of theism or atheism. There is nothing about atheism or theism themselves that necessarily indicate murder and genocide

Contrasted with the Inquisition, the atrocities were a direct result of the church doctrine, to “purge” society of anything heretical. This was certainly driven by their Christian faith.

And I think that people who adhere to their brand of Christianity can be rightly criticized for it.

That isn’t at all what I’m doing. There are evil atheists, there are evil Christians, there are evil Muslims, and evil Buddhists. I’m simply saying that religion drives people to do bad things, while atheism does not.

 

[reggieM]

But if there is no God, the best we can do is lie to them (at least regarding God-given purpose). Your lie might seem more persuasive, but it would be a lie nonetheless.

The lie would be ultimately as meaningless as the act of suicide in that case. An attempt to find the truth about things is an expression of freedom, and thus an immaterial function of the soul. This another problem for atheism at the same time.

I don’t adopt a worldview based on my ability to comfort suicidal people,

The topic really wasn’t about how you arrive at your worldview, but what arguments atheism can provide against suicide.

But based on my experience, sometimes it can have a bigger effect on someone contemplating suicide if you tell them you love them and tell them how much they mean to you than if you tell them that God has a purpose for them.

Have you told someone that God loves them and has a purpose for them?

 

[liquidpele]

The lie would be ultimately as meaningless as the act of suicide in that case. An attempt to find the truth about things is an expression of freedom, and thus an immaterial function of the soul. This another problem for atheism at the same time.

The topic really wasn’t about how you arrive at your worldview, but what arguments atheism can provide against suicide.

Have you told someone that God loves them and has a purpose for them?

You bring up an interesting point… even if all religion is a crock, people do take a lot of comfort from it and get inspiration and strength from it. Would we want to live in a world without Santa Claus? I’m not so sure. Surely it’s continued existence and (I dare say) evolution shows it apparently is filling a niche.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The topic really wasn’t about how you arrive at your worldview, but what arguments atheism can provide against suicide.

Have you told someone that God loves them and has a purpose for them?

**Asked and answered **by evil athiest on post 122.

"I don’t adopt a worldview based on my ability to comfort suicidal people, I do it based on what I think is true. But based on my experience, sometimes it can have a bigger effect on someone contemplating suicide if you tell them you love them and tell them how much they mean to you than if you tell them that God has a purpose for them. "

Moving on.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

The lie would be ultimately as meaningless as the act of suicide in that case. An attempt to find the truth about things is an expression of freedom, and thus an immaterial function of the soul. This another problem for atheism at the same time.

What are you saying is a problem for atheism?

The topic really wasn’t about how you arrive at your worldview, but what arguments atheism can provide against suicide.

I thought it was more about crimes committed by atheists.

Have you told someone that God loves them and has a purpose for them?

No, because I think that would be a lie.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

j1akey

Hitler was just a jackass that happened to be atheist and was a smooth enough talker to get people to follow him, he did not represent any atheists except for himself.
*
Atheist is simply a label that we have been given. We all may think along similar lines but we don’t band together for the common goal of killing in the name of spreading non-belief.*

I beg to differ. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were not just individual atheists who didn’t gather around them other atheists to do their ugly work. Had they been the only atheists, they would hardly have had any support at all from the cultures they overtook. Atheism was gaining ground, and still is gaining ground, and I have no doubt in my mind that an international showdown between atheism and Christianity is even now on the horizon.

The notion that atheists don’t band together for evil ends is proven by the number of godless drug smugglers currently slaughtering priests in Mexico. Or do you think drug smugglers are Christians banded together for the purpose of killing Christian priests?

What would there be in drug smuggling that would fulfill the teachings of Jesus?

On the other hand, there is nothing in atheism to oppose drug smuggling, since the atheist demands the right to define right and wrong for himself, and thinks he is smart enough to get away with murder without ever being caught, by man or God.

As Dostoevski put it, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”

Nietzsche: “God is dead.”

Hitler: “Everything is permitted.”

As to the recent discussion of atheism and suicide, see this:

conservapedia.com/Atheism

 

[hippyprincess]

There are undoubtedly religious motivations for war and suicide bombers. My point was that there is no way to get from the belief that there is some sort of God, to the belief that you should attack someone. People do not fight because of bare theism; they fight because of their religious views which encompass a lot more than bare theism.

I think, in their minds, it is justified because each religion has a specific idea of God. They all believe their deity is the “one true God,” and all other religions are incorrect. The desire to purge the world of other gods. I think that I theism in its purest form: the one true creator.

But I similarly don’t think there have been any wars fought in the name of theism.

I have to disagree. There has been countless killing solely for the purpose of “religious cleansing.” You cannot say that the Inquisition was not fought in the name of Christianity. Whether it was justified or not is another issue, but the monarchy truly believed, in their minds, that what they were doing was right. They were DRIVEN by theism.

There is nothing about atheism or theism themselves that necessarily indicate murder and genocide

The idea that a deity exists? No, not indicating genocide. But the idea that the Abrahamic God exists? Yes, it certainly indicates murder. The Bible is full of God committing genocide.

 

[hippyprincess]

The notion that atheists don’t band together for evil ends is proven by the number of godless drug smugglers currently slaughtering priests in Mexico. Or do you think drug smugglers are Christians banded together for the purpose of killing Christian priests?
What would there be in drug smuggling that would fulfill the teachings of Jesus?

On the other hand, there is nothing in atheism to oppose drug smuggling, since the atheist demands the right to define right and wrong for himself, and thinks he is smart enough to get away with murder without ever being caught, by man or God.

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.

 

[j1akey]

Quick note first Charlemagne II, I’m writing this after I wrote what follows. I don’t usually like getting worked up but you really hit a nerve with that article. I’ve actually gone back and edited it because some of the things that were flying out of my keyboard aren’t really appropriate for this message board.

---

OK…When you start cranking out conservapedia links it’s hard for me to even keep a straight face since I have yet to read anything in there that is actually unbiased and not written in such a way as to actually have at least a somewhat unbiased viewpoint of the subject that’s being written about.

I’ve actually read the article there that you linked before and it’s so far slanted to the right with theological viewpoints and half-thruths and plucked information that it’s practically falling down. There also seems to be a fair bit of fear mongering in there which doesn’t really surprise me.

It links atheism to things anywhere from simple “immorality”, which includes illegal drug use which is illegal but that doesn’t make it immoral, sex, gambling, alchoholim (behavrial disorder/addiction) to mass murder and suicide. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? It’s really nothing but a flat out attack on non-believers! Alot of the stuff it mentions is only immoral for some people but of course if it’s immoral to christians it has be immoral for everyone, RIGHT?

I really REALLY could go on all night here but it’s late I have work tomorrow and I don’t have a full day to pick apart that “article” piece by piece. Fortunately for me someone has already done it.

I read your article (again) so now someone can read this one. The Conservapedia articles being on the left and the refutation of said articles on the right.

rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Atheism

 

[anEvilAtheist]

As Dostoevski put it, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.”

Dostoevsky never said any such thing, nor did any characters in any of his books. This is a common misconception. This statement may describe the views of one of the characters in The Brothers Karamazov, but this quote is not found anywhere in the book.

You might want to check out this article if you want more information. Or if you still don’t believe me, you can search through the text of the book as I have done in order to confirm that there is indeed no such quote (I looked at every instance of the words “permitted” and “lawful”). Here’s a link which lets you download it in whatever format you prefer: gutenberg.org/etext/28054. The book is no longer under copyright so it’s freely available.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

As to the recent discussion of atheism and suicide, see this:

conservapedia.com/Atheism

Well conservapedia obviously isn’t the most trustworthy source, but that doesn’t prove that everything on there is wrong. So I took a look at their points. Their first piece of evidence comes from Reverend Dr. Robert S. MacArthur. It is from over 100 years ago, and it was from a sermon, not from any kind of publication! The one piece of evidence he mentions is that the number of suicides increased after the publication of the Paine’s “Age of Reason.” For one thing, Paine was not advocating atheism, just what he considered a more rational form of religion. Second of all, correlation does not imply causation. If his book had no effect on the suicide rate, the chances are about 50% that the suicide rate would have gone up.

Conservapedia also says that:

Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members.

I agree that people who keep to themselves are probably more likely to commit suicide. Religion gives people a wonderful place to meet and socialize with members of their community. This may indeed be beneficial. There is no reason to assume that it is the religious beliefs themselves that make the difference, rather than the tighter-knit sense of community that religion can bring. Additionally, atheists do sometimes have to face discrimination. In certain fields, such as politics, atheism can leave someone with very little possibility for advancement. Let’s say that in the mid-1900’s, the suicide rate among blacks was higher than it was among whites, would that lead us to conclude that there was something inferior about blacks, or is it possible that society’s mistreatment of them could have made them more likely to commit suicide? I do think that atheists should get more involved in their community, and should not be discriminated against, but I do not think that atheism necessarily predisposes people to suicide.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I think, in their minds, it is justified because each religion has a specific idea of God. They all believe their deity is the “one true God,” and all other religions are incorrect. The desire to purge the world of other gods. I think that I theism in its purest form: the one true creator.

You are making too broad of generalizations. Not all religions want to purge the world of other gods.

I have to disagree. There has been countless killing solely for the purpose of “religious cleansing.” You cannot say that the Inquisition was not fought in the name of Christianity. Whether it was justified or not is another issue, but the monarchy truly believed, in their minds, that what they were doing was right. They were DRIVEN by theism.

They may have been driven by their Christian worldview, but I don’t think you can say they were driven by theism. Stalin may have been driven by his worldview, of which atheism was a part, but you can’t say that he was driven by atheism.

The idea that a deity exists? No, not indicating genocide. But the idea that the Abrahamic God exists? Yes, it certainly indicates murder. The Bible is full of God committing genocide.

You are assuming that all people who believe in the Abrahamic God must believe that all the events in the Old Testament were literal fact, rather than stories intended to teach people lessons. You shouldn’t assume that everyone holds the same views.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I beg to differ. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were not just individual atheists who didn’t gather around them other atheists to do their ugly work. Had they been the only atheists, they would hardly have had any support at all from the cultures they overtook. Atheism was gaining ground, and still is gaining ground, and I have no doubt in my mind that an international showdown between atheism and Christianity is even now on the horizon.

I see you are still claiming that Hitler was an atheist. I think I provided some pretty good evidence that he was not an atheist in an earlier post:

I don’t think we can know for sure what his innermost beliefs were. However, there are certainly plenty of quotes of his which make it seem like he was not an atheist. Here are some examples:
atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerFaithGod.htm
atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/HitlerNazisAtheismSecularism.htm

I also highlighted one seeming inconsistency with you calling Hitler an atheist:

In an earlier response to one of your posts, I said that “one thing I find really interesting is that Catholics are very quick to say that if you’re baptized a Catholic you’re always a Catholic, except when it’s someone they don’t like. Even if Hitler didn’t believe in God, wouldn’t he still have been considered a Catholic?”

Do you agree that it’s a little inconsistent for Catholics to label everyone who was baptized Catholic as a Catholic except when they disagree with them?

You ignored both of these posts, and instead persist in calling Hitler an atheist. Given that you also misrepresented Dostoyevsky, it seems like you care more about bashing atheists than you do about the truth. Hopefully I’m wrong and you just missed my earlier posts.

 

[Dameedna]

As a one-time practicing Atheist, I have been on both sides. I have known dozens - perhaps hundreds - of churched and unchurched people. I have seen with my own eyes. I have witnessed through the lenses of the psych-testing company, and history shows that the worst offenders at exhibiting disdain for life, liberty and happiness - especially of others - rests almost completely in the private sanctuaries of the godless.

jd

Oh come now. The worst offenders are the Godless? There are countries of very strong believers that literally stone a human to death, or cut off their heads for daring to have intercourse outside of a marriage.

Are these people Godless? I’m not sure what kind of “practicing” athiest you were since athiests have no “practice”, they simply lack a belief in God.

The issue is not one of wether or not you believe in a God. It is(imo) primarly one of two things.

1. Wether or not you can place something else *above/] yourself, when living your life. That something else, cannot be your own will alone(not matter what you want to convince yourself of).
2. If that something else is a God, the religion you follow should focus on how to think through ethical decisions vs rules that must be followed in accordance with a religious doctrine. Teach very fundamentalist islamic children in a school environment, and you will find they do not understand altruism at all. Their religion is based on rules, and rules alone.(this is not really true of Islam as a whole however).

I prefer christianity and buddhaism as religions, because they are more focussed on helping people to think through their decisions with a set of philosophies in mind, rather than a strict set of rules. However, both christian and buddhist communities often get it wrong in this regards, and It think are getting it especially wrong in our modern world with infailable bibles and churches(hence the rising # of athiests).

Cheers*

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Charles Darwin

*Ok tell me an first world atheist country that has higher crime than the USA. *

This is a very good question and deserves an answer. But it’s loaded with ambiguities. If you could narrow down the scope of your question, we could get into it in more depth.

For example, what list of first world countries would you be working from? If we are working from different lists, there will be no end of disputes about whether this or that country is first world, second world, or third world.

Also, what list of atheist countries are you working from? Assessments of whether a country is atheist or slightly atheist, or half atheist, or overwhelmingly atheist, vary from one chart to another, and even from one decade to another. For example, the stats for East Germany before it was re-united with West Germany (East Germany was overwhelmingly atheist, overwhelmingly oppressed, and overwhelmingly poor) would be quite different from what they are for a united Germany today. I hope we could agree to use the same chart, so that we can talk without getting forever sidetracked comparing different sources.

Finally, which list of international crime rates would you be looking to work from? As an aside, would you be interesting in rating which type of crime … homicide versus theft versus rape, etc. or would you prefer to compare the total stats for all crimes?

If you could provide me with websites for all of the above that you would accept, and that are reputable, that would also allow others in the thread to follow the discussion and participate. But I suggest we not use stats from either atheist or Christian websites, because then we will never be comfortable with each other’s sources.

Otherwise, I don’t feel like flailing about in a fog of statistics. O.K.?

moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html ← the study by the Journal of Religion & Society “The Journal of Religion & Society is a refereed academic journal dedicated to the publication of scholarly research in religion and its diverse social dimensions (ISSN: 1522-5658). All submissions to the journal will be subject to blind peer review.”

americanhumanist.org/hnn/archives/index.php?id=219&article=7 ← The results.

“Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand, author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens society.”

“As UK Guardian columnist George Monbiot concluded in his review of Gregory Paul�s study, “if you want people to behave as Christians advocate, you should tell them that God does not exist.”” :clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Dameedna]

Hitler was not an atheist, and he was also a dictator, and hes DEAD, so you comparision is irrelevant. Lets stick with the present.

We would do well to remember the past actually.

The problem with the past, is that we keep labelling issues as a problem created by religion, or a problem created by a lack of belief in God and/or following the right religion.

Perhaps, it’s all a big ole fat HUMAN problem!!