Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Second, mere polling on theistic/atheistic beliefs is not a reliable data set because merely declaring on a poll that one is a believer might indicate social or cultural affiliation but may not be truly reflective of the importance of religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in decision making or courses of behaviour.

True Scotsmen would never intentionally homicide someone, so if the data shows that they do, you haven’t actually said anything about the true Scotsmen.

The problem is that the Pew data has the Scotsman claiming the name Scotsman while actually being Bavarian.

3% of Roman Catholics on the poll claim to have no belief in God. Can you be a religious believer without believing in God?

Conversely only 92% of atheists claim to lack belief in God or gods. Are the 8% truly atheists, then, even though they have a belief in God or gods?

How do you define a true Scotsman atheist if you are going to permit atheists to believe in God?

I am not saying there isn’t a problem here. I am saying mere profession of an affiliation or identity isn’t a very accurate determiner of the real disposition/state of that individual.

It is difficult to define a true Scotsman if the Scotsmen claiming to be Scotsmen have no idea what they are claiming about themselves.

 

[englands123]

Some fantastic posts on here from both sides of the discussion.

So if I was just using the USA for example . My open post is wrong ? As the stats prove otherwise , but across Europe for example it is correct ?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

3% of Roman Catholics on the poll claim to have no belief in God. Can you be a religious believer without believing in God?

You mean cultural Catholics?

 

[Freddy]

Some might still think they have the self-declared authority to impose value on the world around them, but their only grounds for doing so is their own willfulness. To accept that as a ground for the subsistent value of people and things is tantamount to claiming the truth is what I declare it to be.

Well, if that is your argument, that hardly demonstrates inherent value in human beings. Rather, the best argument to be made is the value of others is nothing more than the value I bestow upon them. That implies if I bestow no value they have no value.

You think that is a good basis for morality?

I don’t.

Unless we are psychopathic, we all have empathy. And that allows us to imagine what others are feeling in certain cicumstances. It’s a very short and simple step from there to realising that if someone does something to make me feel bad (and I don’t enjoy that) then if I did the same thing to someone else then they are going to feel bad. Hence the Golden Rule.

Because it’s also a very short and simple step to realise that if you went around stealing from everyone then you’d have no cause for complaint if someone stole from you. So the concept of reciprocal altruism has evolved.

Combine those and you have a solid base for a moral code. If you don’t follow the moral code, and it’s one that allows us to live in relative harmony, then you suffer the consequences. Not always. But often enough.

 

[HarryStotle]

Aquinas11:

Freddy:

There are too many examples of people ignoring moral ‘rules’.

But those millions of corpses were killed as result of atheistic government rulers who were following “moral rules” , none of which Atheism can prove were wrong with any objective basis

I guess we can have a show of hands as to who thinks, for example, that genocide is a good thing. From a recent perspective or a biblical one.

Stalin (atheist), Pol Pot (atheist), Chairman Mao (atheist), Napoleon (atheist), Kim Jong II (atheist), Than Shwe (atheist), Jeffrey Dahmer (atheist), Jim Jones (atheist) and Mussolini (atheist) raise their hands.

 

[HarryStotle]

If you don’t follow the moral code, and it’s one that allows us to live in relative harmony, then you suffer the consequences. Not always. But often enough.

Fine for the ordinary Joe Atheist on the street trying to survive who follows a live and let live philosophy. The problem is when Joe Atheist has the opportunity to gain big and not suffer any consequences. What then is the restraint on his behaviour? If self-regard or self-preservation is the determiner for harmonious living, what happens when the opportunity for vast gain tears down all self-restraint? What then, stops someone like Mussolini or Stalin or Kim Jong from a complete lack of restraint?

 

[englands123]

As for South America the % of Christianity is huge, it’s not my place to judge.

But some of these most violent criminals have tattoos and jewellery plastered all over their bodies glorifying Jesus.

I have to be very careful how I word this… Is that a true reflection of Christ our Lord and the answer is no.

So the stats can be misguided.

 

[Aquinas11]

No. Many people have been killed over the centuries because moral rules were ignored. Being an atheist or a believer of any religion does not mean that you are obliged to follow those rules.

You’re missing the point. In Atheism, there is no objective compass on “moral rules”, hence an atheist dictator defines “moral rules” as those which eliminate his opposition since he views his ideology as “moral” , and no objective basis within Atheism can tell him he’s wrong

Those who are religious have reasons for following them other than ‘it’s the best way to live together’ but as we have seen, it doesn’t appear to prevent them deciding to circumvent them when the situation dictates.

You’re confusing the existence of an objective moral framework with the effectiveness of an objective moral framework

Let’s face it. We are all sinners to some degree. I do the wrong thing on times. And I am aware of it. So do you. So let’s not kid ourselves that you have some moral advantage in that respect.

All entirely irrelevant to the point about Atheism (not you or me) and whether provides objective basis of morality

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Aquinas11:

Freddy:

There are too many examples of people ignoring moral ‘rules’.

But those millions of corpses were killed as result of atheistic government rulers who were following “moral rules” , none of which Atheism can prove were wrong with any objective basis

I guess we can have a show of hands as to who thinks, for example, that genocide is a good thing. From a recent perspective or a biblical one.

Stalin (atheist), Pol Pot (atheist), Chairman Mao (atheist), Napoleon (atheist), Kim Jong II (atheist), Than Shwe (atheist), Jeffrey Dahmer (atheist), Jim Jones (atheist) and Mussolini (atheist) raise their hands.

Stalin trained as a priest. And Pol Pot was a buddhist. They were both believers but that didn’t stop them doing wrong. It never has and it never will. So to say that there is an objective morality ordained by God (or the relevant deity) obviously does not mean anything at all if someone decides that gaining power and controlling the populace is what they want to do (and dismantle organisations that are likely to provide a focal point for those who wish to resist - such as religous organisations).

You are free to use the No True Scotsman argument here but be aware that it applies in degree only to all people of faith who sin.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If you don’t follow the moral code, and it’s one that allows us to live in relative harmony, then you suffer the consequences. Not always. But often enough.

Fine for the ordinary Joe Atheist on the street trying to survive who follows a live and let live philosophy. The problem is when Joe Atheist has the opportunity to gain big and not suffer any consequences. What then is the restraint on his behaviour?

As we have seen, one’s religious beliefs, or lack of them, are no constraint to very many people in doing wrong.

 

[Aquinas11]

So to say that there is an objective morality ordained by God (or the relevant deity) obviously does not mean anything at all if someone decides that gaining power and controlling the populace is what they want to do

Correct, you’re just saying God gave man free will which is a tenet of Christianity. If God forced everyone to be moral as mind programmed robots, there would be no point to even having a moral standard since moral standard implies voluntarism

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No. Many people have been killed over the centuries because moral rules were ignored. Being an atheist or a believer of any religion does not mean that you are obliged to follow those rules.

You’re missing the point. In Atheism, there is no objective compass on “moral rules”, hence an atheist dictator defines “moral rules” as those which eliminate his opposition since he views his ideology as “moral” , and no objective basis within Atheism can tell him he’s wrong

So you don’t think that someone with no religious beliefs could state that genocide is morally wrong? You really think that you couldn’t make a convincing secular case against it?

 

[HarryStotle]

Stalin trained as a priest. And Pol Pot was a buddhist. They were both believers but that didn’t stop them doing wrong.

Nope.

You have to prove that Stalin retained his belief in God when he committed the genocide.

Stalin rejected religion after reading Marx. When the Bolsheviks made atheism the state ideology he moved to bloodily remove religious institutions and persons from the country. Hardly a supporter of religion or a believer.

Most schools of Buddhism are not theistic. There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being.(http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/atheism)

Ergo Pol Pot was atheist.

 

[Aquinas11]

Of course someone can “state” genocide is wrong.

But not using an objective basis within Atheism.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So to say that there is an objective morality ordained by God (or the relevant deity) obviously does not mean anything at all if someone decides that gaining power and controlling the populace is what they want to do

Correct, you’re just saying God gave man free will which is a tenet of Christianity. If God forced everyone to be moral as mind programmed robots, there would be no point to even having a moral standard since moral standard implies voluntarism

We could run through many scenarios and both agree that a particular action was immoral without mentioning God. We could give reasons for it that would withstand any argument.

If you then went on to say that, having both agreed the action was immoral, that it was divinely ordained as well, then that makes no difference whatsoever. We had ALREADY agreed that it was immoral. We have agreed that we should follow this specific ‘moral rule’. The fact that you believe it to be ordained by God doesn’t prevent you from breaking that rule. And I can break it as well.

So the only thing that gives that moral rule it’s weight in the here and now is that we both agree that we should each follow it. That’s what bind us to all moral rules. We agree that we should all follow them.

Naturally there are some aspects of morality where we differ. I have no oroblem in sex outside marriage for example. So we agree to disagree on matters such as that and we look for other solutions.

 

[HarryStotle]

So you don’t think that someone with no religious beliefs could state that genocide is morally wrong?

Anyone can make a statement. Your challenge is to provide a sound logical argument for morality with purely atheistic assumptions. You haven’t done that yet.

You really think that you couldn’t make a convincing secular case against it?

You haven’t made a convincing secular case, yet.

In fact, you haven’t demonstrated that you understand how that case would be made.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Stalin trained as a priest. And Pol Pot was a buddhist. They were both believers but that didn’t stop them doing wrong.

Nope.

You have to prove that Stalin retained his belief in God when he committed the genocide.

I have to do no such thing. Notwithstanding the impossibility of the request. I coukd equally ask you to prove he’d lost his belief. But whether he was or was not a believer was not the problem. It’s what he did was the problem. And, I keep repeating this, having a belief does not stop you doing wrong. Otherwise the jails would be all but empty.

 

[Aquinas11]

The fact that you believe it to be ordained by God doesn’t prevent you from breaking that rule.

Still confusing effectiveness of objective moral standard with existence of objective moral standard

We could run through many scenarios and both agree that a particular action was immoral without mentioning God. We could give reasons for it that would withstand any argument.

Even if we did agree, all other Atheists could disagree and be justified in so doing , from their moral perspective.

So the only thing that gives that moral rule it’s weight in the here and now is that we both agree that we should each follow it. That’s what bind us to all moral rules. We agree that we should all follow them

But difference is Christianity faith requires all Christians follow rules or face consequences, whereas Atheism does not require same of all Atheists

 

[ATraveller]

Is there a suggestion our Uk crime rate is growing faster than USA ?

So this entire discussion is supposed to be about the UK? Because that’s very different from saying crime is going up globally.
And so far, I’ve seen a lot about homicides. Well, what about theft and corporate fraud? Phishing and scams? Assaults?

 

[GiftofMercy]

So why is crime on the rise?

Here, where I am, the reason is drugs on the rise = crime on the rise. Drug addiction. No stats needed to prove that, just go out on the street and open the old eyes.