1
1holycatholic
Guest
Like atheism?
- Status
L
Leela
Guest
Hi 1holycatholic,
Are you saying that atheism results in killing? Please explain how that works.
Best,
Leela
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Predatory atheism does. They view theists and theism (religion) as harmful and something to be eradicated. Some, like Stalin, have had the means to carry out mass atrocities to further an explicitly atheist ideology. Others, like Dawkins, have only had the ability to promote their destructive ideas of the suppression of religion through a series of puerile books and articles.
Is this surprising? A predatory atheist like Dawkins explicitly repudiates moral responsibility for a person’s actions and denies good and evil.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
It’s simple, and I had the idea I had explained it recently. Allow me to try again.
Atheism (the rejection of a belief in the supernatural) leaves a choice as follows: Either there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, in which case gangland slayings, sex murders, abortion and other impulsive, selfish or expediency-based killings cannot be forbidden, for nothing can be forbidden unless the person who wishes to engage in the action agrees to the rule, resulting in the law of the jungle, or there is absolute right and wrong, and its basis is a matter of someone’s opinion, and the one whose opinion holds sway is the one who can physically (materially) enforce it soonest – the most armed person in a society, or in the world. This means a dictator.
F
Fran65
Guest
Playing ‘devil’s’ advocate here; but isn’t there are a third option?
It appears that some atheists propose a society where everyone is completely rational and society is governed by reason. I am assuming that this would mean a democracy as its unlikely that everyone would be as ‘rational’ as the next person. The people in charge would, of course be the epitome of rationality itself and all decisions would therefore the ‘right’ i.e. most reasonable ones.
(Of course those who are not rational would need ‘dealing with’ somehow in order to prevent their spreading of the disease of irrationality (as Dawkins has termed it). This would be humane and rational. Isolation from society(to prevent further spread), solitary confinement (we don’t want cross infection now do we?) and regular examination to check for recovery. Once recovered, back into society, but with regular and close monitoring in case of relapse. Terminal cases could choose to be euthanised as an alternative to lifetime imprisonment.)
Society would then be a clean, rational and idyllic place.
It appears that some atheists propose a society where everyone is completely rational and society is governed by reason. I am assuming that this would mean a democracy as its unlikely that everyone would be as ‘rational’ as the next person. The people in charge would, of course be the epitome of rationality itself and all decisions would therefore the ‘right’ i.e. most reasonable ones.
(Of course those who are not rational would need ‘dealing with’ somehow in order to prevent their spreading of the disease of irrationality (as Dawkins has termed it). This would be humane and rational. Isolation from society(to prevent further spread), solitary confinement (we don’t want cross infection now do we?) and regular examination to check for recovery. Once recovered, back into society, but with regular and close monitoring in case of relapse. Terminal cases could choose to be euthanised as an alternative to lifetime imprisonment.)
Society would then be a clean, rational and idyllic place.
C
cranster
Guest
I see in that article that the atheistic regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao have collectively killed 100,000,000 people. Far, far surpassing any religious conflict. I’m wondering what the collective numbers are to date for the atheistic slaughter of innocents in what should be the safest, most nurturing place on earth… a mother’s womb?
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Cranster, strngrnrth, all,
People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much LIKE religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
Best,
Leela
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Rubbish. The aforementioned death camps and killing fields were the result of atheist misotheism.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Conflict is evidence of man’s fallen nature. Where there is virtue there is unity, where virtue is lacking, there is division and discord. The mistake the OP is making is making all religious and pseudo-religious “dogma” equal without evaluating them on their own merits. For example, a dogma which says strapping bombs to a mentally disabled person, sending them into a market, and detonating the bomb will lead to salvation is different than a dogma which says turning from murderous passions and leading a life of virtue, patience, and mercy will lead to salvation.
If everyone lives the the *right *dogma, only then can there possibly be peace. However, in this vale of tears, we are all fallen and we will not always live the right dogma, so there will be discord and violence–both by those who instigate it and those charged with protecting the innocent from those instigators (who are also fallen and prone to abuse their authority).
That true dogma is the dogma of Jesus Christ, taking on His yolk and living the beatitudes. It is to be offered freely and those who choose not to accept still retain their right to life and all that goes with it and are to be treated with patience and charity (unless they themselves threaten that peace, safety, and common good of others, and then those vested with the proper authority may use force if necessary).
This philosophy is more than the cold indifference of “live and let live”–it is the burning charity that actively seeks the good of the other.
If everyone lives the the *right *dogma, only then can there possibly be peace. However, in this vale of tears, we are all fallen and we will not always live the right dogma, so there will be discord and violence–both by those who instigate it and those charged with protecting the innocent from those instigators (who are also fallen and prone to abuse their authority).
That true dogma is the dogma of Jesus Christ, taking on His yolk and living the beatitudes. It is to be offered freely and those who choose not to accept still retain their right to life and all that goes with it and are to be treated with patience and charity (unless they themselves threaten that peace, safety, and common good of others, and then those vested with the proper authority may use force if necessary).
This philosophy is more than the cold indifference of “live and let live”–it is the burning charity that actively seeks the good of the other.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
It has often been said that Marxism is the worst sort of Christian heresy. Indeed, “historical necessity” looks like an attempt to produce a new God.
Lenin and Calvin have much in common.
Lenin and Calvin have much in common.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Genesis,
As I said in the OP, I no longer subscribe to “live and let live” with regard to domgatic belief. I completely agree that some dogmas are more dangerous than others, and even that belief in certain dogmas can make people behave well (though this would not constitute evidence that such dogmas any more true). But the problem with dogma in general is that it gives us no way to argue that one is true and another is false since by definition dogmatic beliefs are not based on evidence. People who hold beliefs that are subject to the usual standards of evidence and arguments in the pressure of conversation have some hope of coming to agreement, while those who simply claim that they possess revealed truth have no recourse to dialogue with those who claim to possess a contradictory revealed truth. (They do, as history has shown, have a recourse to violence.)
Consider what it is like when we really understand something? Such knowledge transcends nationalism and religious divisions. there is no Jewish algebra as opposed to Muslim algebra or Christian biochemistry or Hindu physics. Why? Because such knowledge is not thought to be revealed truth but rather truth about what happened throusands of years ago but rather truth that is available to anyone right now and subject to revision as new evidence and arguments become available.
Best,
Leela
S
strngrnrth
Guest
The only large-scale experiments in atheism ever tried have been the dictatorships we’re discussing, and the reason, as I’ve been saying, is that without a supernatural source of absolute moral definition, society is left to each person’s desires (the street, also a lsaughterrhouse when uncontrolled from outside), or to a particular person or group’s leadership – a dictatorship, where no overriding law restrains the whim of the one(s) who gain(s) power first.
Reason sounds like the answer. The problem is, who defines reason? Shall philosophy professors patrol the streets? What do we do when they conflict? And what of the fact that the human mind is dependent during this life on an organ, the brain, which has many flaws? What of the fact that reason does not reinforce atheism in the long run? How will the society remain atheistic? Who will enforce it? What of the obvious existence of the unexplained? Who will explain it away? Who will enforce the acceptance of the rationalizations that will make necessary?
Who will enforce reason itself, and what will be done with those who are navigating their lives intuitively instead and doing well at it? What will be done with those who are handling their choices hedonistically, which is the norm in the absence of restraints?
Who will define the premises (truth) upon which the reasoning will be done? Whose experiences will be considered valid?
Will all decisions be made by consensus? Have you ever done consensus? The most energetic, least busy, most socially gifted usually end up getting their way. It’s easy to see how it would lead to eventual cults of personality; the ones who always end up persuading others to give in would one day have enough power to be de facto leaders and finally begin giving orders.
There are also large and vital bodies of decision that cannot be made by reason alone. They are the most important ones – moral decisions. Some of the most logical people I have ever met were sociopaths. A society that had no overriding moral code but relied on everyone’s individual reasoning ability would reward such people again and again until they gained absolute power – dictatorship again. I can still remember trying to explain rationally to a popular, happy sociopath why parent-child incest is wrong. She never saw my argument as reasonable, because it ultimately relied on an instinct, not a provable conclusion. Since she had no such instinct, she dismissed what I had to say. In the absence of a moral code that is shared and known to be shared, without needing to be proven syllogistically every time it comes up, people like her would have all the cards.
F
Fran65
Guest
Oh dear. Now, that is sad.
Is your apparent intolerance; if I understand you correctly; reasonable? They don’t agree with me (my dogma
) therefore…what?
G
Genesis315
Guest
Believing something by faith is not the same as believing it for no reason. It’s a mistake to say the usual modes of evidence don’t apply. There are a great many events in human history that we believe happened but which we did not personally witness. We know them by the testimony of people who did witness them and by those who have handed on that witness. The evidence we have is the testimony and we judge it based on the credibility of those testifying to it (and those handing on that testimony through the decades and centuries). The Incarnation, or any other alleged event of divine revelation, is posited as a real event in human history and can be judged and known as such. You believe what you do about the history of religious violence because you trust the people who have testified to this information. For another example, all court cases are judged based on testimony alone–even the physical evidence has to be authenticated by testimony. Jurors never see the event for themselves (even if there is video of it, the video must be authenticated by testimony).
Likewise, even the truths you mention weren’t originally universally known. As you said, there has been erroneous understandings of different natural processes and even different mathematical systems in different cultures. But over time, through human persuasion, those cultures with erroneous beliefs in those areas adopted the true ones. Even algebra was not universally known at one time.
It is no different with religion. Historically we can see this happening as the unreasonable worship of man-made items (stone idols, mythical contingent beings, etc.) being exchanged for worship of a non-contingent Creator almost completely.
However, even to this day, in any sphere of truths, people believe things contrary to reality–by innocent ignorance, by obstinance, for convenience, due to habit, negligence, etc. However, the truth can be known–including the truth about God.
People have resorted to violence (as individuals and as groups and societies) for a great many pretexts. 99% of the time it is over resources (land, money, authority, etc.). People also commit violence against those of a different race. Why? I have no idea (someone else can probably explain this phenomenon better) but skin color can’t be called the cause of the violence just like a set of religious doctrines cannot be called the cause of the violence (unless the doctrine exhorts the follower to violence–and then we can look at the origin of that doctrine, the possible motive of the one claiming its veracity–is it to preserve or gain power, to manufacture peace and order, etc., solely the good of others, etc?–and judge his credibility.).
People will do violence no matter what–they are fallen. Look at homogenous societies (at least as homogenous as possible) and there is still murders, robberies, gang violence, etc. The only solution is the healing of that fallenness. All superficial attempts at peace are bound to fail.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
We must remember, many people have the dogmatic belief that dogma is a necessarily bad thing!
…and also possess a belief that belief is not to be believed as no belief is truly believable!
In other words, they make a religion out of anti-religion, then claim they have no religion, because they’d then have to “kill themselves off”, which is NOT what they want to do, and so define things so as to avoid a logically necessary suicide.
I rather wish they’d simply see their self-contradiction(s), and either submit to their own logically demanded suicide or see their error and join the Church.
:shamrock2:
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Cats,We must remember, many people have the dogmatic belief that dogma is a necessarily bad thing!
…and also possess a belief that belief is not to be believed as no belief is truly believable!
I don’t think that anyone has said that beliefs are not to be believed? I’ve said that I believe that it is bad to hold beliefs dogmatically, but this is not a belief that I hold dogmatically itself. It is subject to revision as new evidence and arguments become available.
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
Hi strngth,
This is correlational data that is not intended to suggest that there is a cause and effect relationship here. But certainly atheism is consistent with a healthy society and religion does not ensure a society’s health.
Best,
Leela
Is being too desirous of evidence in support of our core beliefs incompatible with democracy? I can’t see how. In fact countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious.
This is correlational data that is not intended to suggest that there is a cause and effect relationship here. But certainly atheism is consistent with a healthy society and religion does not ensure a society’s health.
Why do you think that beliefs about morality always need to be enforced? I’m not proposing any sort of dictatorship or a king of reason. I’m just saying that morality can be studied scientifically. When scientists discovered that aspirin can reduce the risk of heart attack, they don’t force anyone to take aspirin. Likewise, when we discover moral truths that promote human flourishing we won’t need to force those truths on anyone. I’m not proposing that government should be any different than it is now.
Best,
Leela
M
Michael_David
Guest
Quote, Leela: I’m not proposing that government should be any different than it is now.
Have you taken a good hard look at it lately?
Have you taken a good hard look at it lately?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
It’s easy to say that some dogma that we hold is “subject to revision”, but there is no possibility that a dogmatic belief that dogmatic beliefs are bad can be “revised”.
It is a basic violation of the definition of dogma. It equates “dogma” with “provisional belief”, and with “belief”, more simply put.
“DOGMA” is an evil word (always) to folks who don’t understand that the only TRUE dogmas are those from God. And, in fact, “dogma” used that way IS vastly an evil word (an evil deed) without knowing the origin of true dogmas.
Any other so-called “dogma” is merely a belief, which IS indeed subject to revision, as in expansion, contraction or negation.
:shamrock2:
- Status