Ah… so isn’t it equally legitimate to argue that most of the atrocities performed in the past also had too many factors involved to label them as, strictly speaking, religious?Not necessarily. There are numerous factors involved, way too many to label all evil as atheism
The double standard were implied by you, actually, when you insist that atheism is a complete world view.Again, the double standard… Christians kill in the name of God; its religions fault. Communists kill in the name of their explicitly atheistic agenda and there is “no common ground” between their atrocity and their belief system.
So is it fair to say that you are arguing from utilitarian motives? I.e., I don’t want done to me, so I won’t do unto others and I want such done to me, so I will do unto others? So if someone can neither hurt you or benefit you, do you have any moral obligation toward them?
It’s from mutual respect and a respect for other’s life. It’s not selfish, it’s respectful.Bill
Actually, no, it’s not.Ah… so isn’t it equally legitimate to argue that most of the atrocities performed in the past also had too many factors involved to label them as, strictly speaking, religious?
After all, the Crusades were mostly run by land hungry European nobles, the Spanish Inquisition was a tool of the State, etc.
Bill
I don’t insist it is a complete world view, I do however, know that it is an integral part of a number of materialistic ideologies, especially communism.The double standard were implied by you, actually, when you insist that atheism is a complete world view.
Atheism is a basic belief of any version of communism that is descended from Marx’s writings. The basic fact of the matter is that any state that was controlled by communism tried to push atheism, and when that has failed, has tried to control the religious beliefs of its citizens.I also love how you just insert “Atheist” into the communist agenda line there. I submit that it’s more of a political communist motivation than any lack of deity. And this will reign true for most incidents.
“[Religion] is the opiate of the masses” – Karl MarxThe insertion of “Atheist” into the political viewpoint to justify that “all the world needs is god” is just not working. Rather address issues on the political forum than turning them into something that is not related to atheism.
Umm… by why that respect in the first place? I didn’t ask for a definition of what is good, I asked why be good.It’s from mutual respect and a respect for other’s life. It’s not selfish, it’s respectful.
No, I don’t, because no such difference exists.Actually, no, it’s not.
The motivations for most of the atrocities were political, invasion, etc…except when they were done in the name of a god, or done by someone who said that god told him/her to, then they become purely religious.
Don’t’ you see the difference?
Those crimes were not committed in the name of atheism.The proof is there from life:
Revolutionary France. Atheist morality. 500,000 dead.
Stalin’s Russia. Atheist morality. 10,000,000 dead
Mao’s China. Atheist Morality. 15,000,000 dead
Pol Pot’s Cambodia. Atheist morality. 2,000,000 dead
Kim’s Korea. Atheist morality ??? dead.
Hitler too despised the Church and Christian morality.
Why do atheists start killing on an industrial scale as soon as they come to power?
The answer is that they have a relativist morality - not an absolute one. What is good for US becomes the ruling moral ethic. Everything else soon goes. “The end justifies the means”. The same applies to the abortion argument.
Kin/group altruism is possible in an evolutionary setting. The group of individuals that looks out for one another will probably do better than the group of individuals who are constantly stabbing each other in the back.Here’s a suggestion.
Modern psychology believes there’s no such thing as a truly altruistic act. They hold that any such perceived act is actually somehow to the benefit of the participant.
Something like jumping into a freezing river to save a stranger, when no one else is around to witness it, is hard to explain in psychological or evolutionary biological terms. It goes against our “selfish genes”. Yet people do these kinds of acts, atheists, theists, and agnostics. Science cannot explain this.
If we’re looking at the scale involved we should certainly not overlook Christian killing Christian, or theist killing theist. These acts certainly dwarf anything ever supposedly committed by atheists.Perhaps, but in that case, it is legitimate to look at the scale involved. As bad as the excesses of Christians, Jews and Muslims have been in the history of the world (when claiming to act in the name of their religion), the explicitly atheist groups have managed to trump them pretty handily in just a hundred years. Could it be possible then, that most religious people recognize the disconnect between such actions and their faith? Where as such a disconnect does not exist for the Atheist?
They were committed because of a belief that human life is worthless unless it is yours and you have more power. That is an atheist position.Those crimes were not committed in the name of atheism.
Kin/group altruism is possible in an evolutionary setting. The group of individuals that looks out for one another will probably do better than the group of individuals who are constantly stabbing each other in the back.
Actually, according to a strict dictionary definition, an atheist is one who doesn’t believe in a deity, not one who thinks that might makes right. Certainly, there have been atheists who have held such views, but that does not mean that it’s a fundamental tenet of atheism.They were committed because of a belief that human life is worthless unless it is yours and you have more power. That is an atheist position.
Might makes right is a manifestation of atheism. The Irrational Atheist shows this quite well.Actually, according to a strict dictionary definition, an atheist is one who doesn’t believe in a deity, not one who thinks that might makes right. Certainly, there have been atheists who have held such views, but that does not mean that it’s a fundamental tenet of atheism.
“essentially indistinguishable”? No evidence of that. Catholic Africa is growing despite great hardships. Shortly after the former USSR collapsed, Churches opened back up. The Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared during history and miracles have been attributed to her intercession.VociMike, interesting points, thanks.
Axion, the problem was that the other fellow was claiming that all morality, religious or otherwise, is really just evolved group behaviour mechanisms for the protection of genetic integrity that arose through natural selection. In other words, he wasn’t arguing that “atheist morality” was superior to religiously-inspired morality so much as that the two were essentially indistinguishable.
Not every example of killing by Christians can be blamed on Christianity, just like not every killing performed by an atheist can be blamed on atheism. Specifically the killing must be motivated by a belief system or ideology in which theism or atheism is an integral part. Therefore the excesses of Franco’s Nationalists in Spain can, I think, in part be blamed on their Catholic beliefs. On the flip side, a Nazi who was Christian killed because he was a Nazi, his Christianity was not an integral element of his Nazism (Though it is fair to argue that Christianity played a large role in the anti-semitism that formed the backdrop and was a necessary precondition of the Holocaust).If we’re looking at the scale involved we should certainly not overlook Christian killing Christian, or theist killing theist. These acts certainly dwarf anything ever supposedly committed by atheists.
Russia was not a Christian nation when Stalin came to Power. The USSR was an explicitly atheistic nation. While Italy and Germany may not have explicitly shed their Christian backgrounds, I think it is fair to say that both Italian Fascism and Nazism were both antagonistic to traditional Christian belief. Stalin and Mussolini were both explicitly atheists and most evidence suggests that Hitler probably was an atheist in private.And remember that Russia and Germany and Italy were Christian nations. Hitler and Stalin and Mussolini were baptized Christians. How exactly does Christianity morph into Stalinism, Nazism and Fascism unless the seeds of same are contained within these religious orthodox systems?
Nope. Study your history or go to a Marxist web site. The purpose of the State in Communist Russia was to get rid of religious beliefs through propaganda, which is exactly what’s going on in America right now. The only difference is it’s being done through the media, primarily with individuals known as “comedians.”Not every example of killing by Christians can be blamed on Christianity, just like not every killing performed by an atheist can be blamed on atheism. Specifically the killing must be motivated by a belief system or ideology in which theism or atheism is an integral part. Therefore the excesses of Franco’s Nationalists in Spain can, I think, in part be blamed on their Catholic beliefs. On the flip side, a Nazi who was Christian killed because he was a Nazi, his Christianity was not an integral element of his Nazism (Though it is fair to argue that Christianity played a large role in the anti-semitism that formed the backdrop and was a necessary precondition of the Holocaust).
In any case, I think you truly underestimate the scale of the killings that occurred in the 20th century. They pretty much dwarf anything that came before them. It might take the previous 10 centuries to equal the death toll of the wars and political movements of the 20th century.
Russia was not a Christian nation when Stalin came to Power. The USSR was an explicitly atheistic nation. While Italy and Germany may not have explicitly shed their Christian backgrounds, I think it is fair to say that both Italian Fascism and Nazism were both antagonistic to traditional Christian belief. Stalin and Mussolini were both explicitly atheists and most evidence suggests that Hitler probably was an atheist in private.
Ultimately, this argument holds no weight. Its a classic example of “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”. Just because A preceded B, that does not mean that A is necessarily a cause of B.
–
Bill
Whatever beliefs certain atheists might also hold, “might makes right” is not a fundamental pillar of atheism, nor is the view that human life is worthless.Might makes right is a manifestation of atheism. The Irrational Atheist shows this quite well.
I disagree.Whatever beliefs certain atheists might also hold, “might makes right” is not a fundamental pillar of atheism, nor is the view that human life is worthless.
Ed,Nope. Study your history or go to a Marxist web site. The purpose of the State in Communist Russia was to get rid of religious beliefs through propaganda, which is exactly what’s going on in America right now. The only difference is it’s being done through the media, primarily with individuals known as “comedians.”
Throughout the 1960s, I constantly heard from the Federal Government that the United States was locked in a struggle with Godless Communism. Currently, Christianity is in a struggle with Godless Leftists in the United States and Europe.
Peace,
Ed
Right on - atheism will grab the traditional Catholic morality but drop the God and absolute truth part. No atheist is born in a vacuum.Oh bother, the question was just asked and people are already comparing “death toll” numbers.
Folks, with all do respect (be you atheist or Christian or whatever) - can we get any more cliche than this?
Eh, let’s begin shall we.
1.) Its Incoherent to talk about “Atheist morality” as it is just as incoherent to talk about “Theist morality.”
Explanation: People are confusing categories here. By themselves, atheism and theism hold no particular positive (not as in good, but affirmitive ones) doctrines associated with the belief or disbelief in the existence of a deity.
2.) However - the belief in either one can be attached to a set of doctrines.
Which is why its possible to speak of “Christian morality” or if we get more specific “Catholic Morality.”
In terms of those holding an atheistic standpoint - we avail ourselves of other options, normally manifestations of specific philosophical or political ideologies.
Read as: Atheism is a COMPONENT (a piece, a part, a segment) of a world view. NOT AN TOTALISTIC WORLDVIEW STANDING BY ITSELF.
Ex. Its possible to say all Communists are Atheists, its not true however to indulge in the reverse: all Atheists are Communists.**
**Some wise guy will point out the fact that there were in fact Communist Russian Orthodox and Daoist Chinese Communist officers thereby invalidating what i just said. Please bear with me - i’m only trying to make a statement for the general case.
What are some of the typical options? Well, it depends on a variety of criteria:
1.) Is the orientation of the atheist toward something individualistic? Or societal?
2.) Is the atheist attempting to reground morality in some absolute basis? Or is he/she comfortable with simply accepting the standard codes of conduct mandated by the society he/she is in?
3.) Is the atheist the type of person who needs a “group” of some sort? Here i’m not talking about friends or companions, but does the person feel the need to belong to some sort of organization that expresses views they hold dear?
And from those 3 questions you’ll get a variety responses ranging from some sort existential personalistic morality that is confined only to a single person (the thinker) or something far more brutal like the Totalitarian manifestations of Communism.