Atheist Philosophy and Freedom of Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lady_Cygnus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lady_Cygnus

Guest
Hello everyone 😃

While driving to work today I had an interesting thought


Since God created Man with a free will, then each man has the choice to reject God, and no man (politician/president/terrorist) has the right to take that choice away? Thus, from the Christian beliefs, the idea of freedom of religion would (or should) naturally be concluded.

What in atheist philosophy allows for this freedom? The way I understand atheism it would seem that there are only two possibilities. First, if and atheist believes in doing what is best for society as a whole, the “self-deception” inherent in religion should not be allowed and the freedom should be abolished.

Conversely, if the atheist believes that religion is necessary to control the masses (one argument I’ve heard) then there should again be no freedom of religion, but a statewide religion enforced completely.

Is there another option for an atheist to take? Any solid reason for an atheist to support freedom of religion that if followed would not lead to the demise of that very freedom?

(note - I searched for this but didn’t find anything directly addressing this question, I’m sorry if I’ve duplicated something :o ).
 
Your reasoning is consistent with the course of atheism in modern times. Everywhere that atheists have had their way, religion has been persecuted. It was so in France during the Revolution; also in Mexico, Russia, China and Germany, where religious groups have been cruelly treated by atheists when they got in power, and many were executed.

In America, a dominantly Christian nation, atheists have been protected by law and there have been no wholsesale slaughter or purges of their kind. Nor have they by law been forbidden the same rights others have. They can run for office, they can make movies, they can teach, they can build financial empires, they can be doctors, lawyers, scientists, virtually anything they want to be.

I cannot think of a single atheist in America ever executed because he thumbed his nose at Christianity.
 
Lady Cygnus:

Is there another option for an atheist to take? Any solid reason for an atheist to support freedom of religion that if followed would not lead to the demise of that very freedom?..
Click to expand...
why couldn’t an atheist simply say that humans have free will and can follow any personal philosophy that they wanted? :confused:
 
I believe that the problem atheists have with religion is that it can be so divisive. If you look back at history it is clear that many a persecution, war, genocide, etc
 has been carried out in the name of religion. Heck, just read the paper. If “religious” people were really peaceful, loving, and tolerant of those who did not agree with them then I think athiests wouldn’t be so down on religion. Just a thought.
 
40.png
koda:
I believe that the problem atheists have with religion is that it can be so divisive. If you look back at history it is clear that many a persecution, war, genocide, etc
 has been carried out in the name of religion. Heck, just read the paper. If “religious” people were really peaceful, loving, and tolerant of those who did not agree with them then I think athiests wouldn’t be so down on religion. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
If you’d look at atheistic societies, such as Communist countries in our day, you’d see that they are far bloodier than any Christian society ever was. The problem is not religion, it is the concupiscence of man. The argument that religion causes division and war is a trick of the devil, and a very effective one because so many people eat it up and then turn from God. It sounds logical at first and it is the easy way out, so nobody thinks it through any further. Sad. 😩
 
40.png
steveandersen:
why couldn’t an atheist simply say that humans have free will and can follow any personal philosophy that they wanted? :confused:
Click to expand...
Perhaps it’s just my religious background, but it seems that saying people have “free will” would deny that it’s all instinct and allow for the possibility of a Creator. Basically, saying people have “free will” is saying they can choose between right and wrong. But if there are right and wrong things then there is something that makes them such, a universal Right and Wrong


Like I said, it may just be my background.
 
Lady Cygnus:
Perhaps it’s just my religious background, but it seems that saying people have “free will” would deny that it’s all instinct and allow for the possibility of a Creator. Basically, saying people have “free will” is saying they can choose between right and wrong. But if there are right and wrong things then there is something that makes them such, a universal Right and Wrong


Like I said, it may just be my background.
Click to expand...
Why would an atheist say that all thought processes are instinctual? I’ve never heard such a claim. :confused:

And why would free will be necessarily limited to choices between good and evil?
 
Or an atheist might say: “What doesn’t hurt me doesn’t bother me. If you want to practice your religion, go right ahead. Why should I care how you spend your private time?”
 
By the word “atheist,” are we including “deist”? Many Puritan New Englanders thought that Jefferson’s deism was no different from atheism.
 
40.png
koda:
I believe that the problem atheists have with religion is that it can be so divisive. If you look back at history it is clear that many a persecution, war, genocide, etc
 has been carried out in the name of religion. Heck, just read the paper. If “religious” people were really peaceful, loving, and tolerant of those who did not agree with them then I think athiests wouldn’t be so down on religion. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
If you REALLY look at history, that is not “clear” at all. There have been just as many wars between parties sharing the same religion as between parties with different religions, and in every war there have been comabatants who practised the “enemy’s religion”. War, persecution and genocide are caused by the desire to possess what someone else has (land, wealth, etc). When leaders are whipping their populations up to fight a war, they demonise ANYTHING which happens to be different about the proposed opponent - religion, culture, dress, skin colour, physical build, hairstyles, customs, language etc. If you say this means that religion CAUSED the war, you are merely accepting the warmonger’s propaganda.
 
40.png
steveandersen:
Why would an atheist say that all thought processes are instinctual? I’ve never heard such a claim. :confused:

And why would free will be necessarily limited to choices between good and evil?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, the claim I’ve heard was that our thoughts were the natural evolution of our ancestor’s instincts. So instinctual in that they get their orgin from instinct.

I don’t see how free will could be defined otherwise. If you are just choosing between two instincts then it will just be the stronger one that wins. But then it wouldn’t really be a choice. :confused:
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
Or an atheist might say: “What doesn’t hurt me doesn’t bother me. If you want to practice your religion, go right ahead. Why should I care how you spend your private time?”
Click to expand...
I suppose they could say this, falling back on survival of the fittest mentality
 :hmmm:
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
By the word “atheist,” are we including “deist”? Many Puritan New Englanders thought that Jefferson’s deism was no different from atheism.
Click to expand...
I was thinking atheist as in “There is no God”, although I suppose the arguments would hold for a deist, as they believe there is no relevant God.
 
Lady Cygnus:
I suppose they could say this, falling back on survival of the fittest mentality
 :hmmm:
Click to expand...
And what does that have to do with the statement I made? How is “live and let live” equivalent to “survival of the fittest”?
 
40.png
EnterTheBowser:
And what does that have to do with the statement I made? How is “live and let live” equivalent to “survival of the fittest”?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I wasn’t clear, I was puzzling over it and submitted an incomplete thought, thus the :hmmm: . The following is a slightly more complete version what will hopefully explain how I came to the connection at least.

I was trying to see how an Atheist would support the statement “Live and let live” if they have the belief that we are all just rational animals (from basic first principles I guess you could say). The Atheists I know tend to base their morals on what will benefit society, so this is unusal for me. The only time I’ve heard “live and let live” was from people who didn’t want to discuss religion or ethics at all.

But, supposing an Atheist did present it as an argument
 It seems the only thing he has to base this on is in the wild each animal would fend for itself, as long as no other animals bothered it then it shouldn’t care about them. Since each animal is isolated it becomes a competition to see who will survive, thus my connection with survival of the fittest.

Does this make sense?

PS - didn’t know you were an atheist, thought you were playing devils advocate which is why I didn’t expand on the connection earlier. Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend :o
 
Why couldn’t an Atheist have a live and let live attitude? It seems to me that it is religion, maybe espesially Christianity, that has meddled with peoples private lifes (like bans on birth-controll, dancing, and so on). Such meddling would be ok with me if it only affected the believers of said faith. It doesn’t stop at the believers ofcource because churches try to influence politics thus affecting everyone.

Furthermore; why would an Atheist suddenly be left with primal animal choices of social interactions? After all we function in society the same way any other human do. Humans are social animals and will want to get along with eachother.

My stance as an Atheist is I’ll do what is best for me and society and YOU can believe whatever you like as long as it doesn’t limit societys or my freedom.

Athrond
 
Lady Cygnus:
What in atheist philosophy allows for this freedom?
Click to expand...
Obviously a lot of people want or need to believe in dieties or higher powers. As long as that belief does not lead to harming other, esp. those with a different belief, why should it be forbidden? It doesn’t harm anybody if you pray, worship, or meet with other people to do that.
My philosophy is, that anyone should have as much freedom as possible, and should be subject to as less rules as necessary.
 
Gilbert Keith:
Germany, where religious groups have been cruelly treated by atheists when they got in power, and many were executed.
Click to expand...
That has never happened in Germany.
Religious groups were quite often cruelly treated and executed by other religious groups, but never by atheists. And the only German state, that deserves the label “atheist”, was the DDR (East Germany). Granted, it treated their citizens cruelly, but that treatment was applied to anybody, who did not comply with the system, regardless of one’s belief.
 
Lady Cygnus:
I’m sorry, the claim I’ve heard was that our thoughts were the natural evolution of our ancestor’s instincts. So instinctual in that they get their orgin from instinct.
Click to expand...
I’m still not sure that I understand how that follows

after all, our hands had their origin in the limbs of the lobe fishes but that doesn’t make them flippers 😉
Lady Cygnus:
I don’t see how free will could be defined otherwise. If you are just choosing between two instincts then it will just be the stronger one that wins. But then it wouldn’t really be a choice. :confused:
Click to expand...
so are you saying that athiests hold that humans are not rational?
 
AnAtheist

Religious groups were quite often cruelly treated and executed by other religious groups, but never by atheists. And the only German state, that deserves the label “atheist”, was the DDR (East Germany). Granted, it treated their citizens cruelly, but that treatment was applied to anybody, who did not comply with the system, regardless of one’s belief.
*__________________
*
Why do you persist in this misinformation when it has been pointed out to you in other forums that it is not true?

Hitler was against **all **religion. Any biography of him will prove this. What he said in Mein Kampf did not represent his true thinking, as he later on several occasions repudiated Christianity altogether and expressed his admiration for the atheist “God is dead” philosopher Nietzsche, going so far as to have himself photographed with a bust of Nietzsche. In Mein Kampf he presented himself as a Christian so as not to offend Christians by his real hatred of religion.

What Martin Niemöller said, a Lutheran pastor in Germany who spent several years in one of Hitler’s concentration camps, appears in the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636, as:

*When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned. *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top