Moral progress from Biblical morality v Atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alyosha1984
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alyosha1984

Guest
Like it or not, one of the great gods of the past century is atheism, currently very prevalent especially among elites in America and Europe.

One of the most telling differences (in my view) is that Biblical morality contributed to basically all moral improvements in humankind … going back before Christ to the Torah. Contrary wise, Atheism seems to have done little good…however, I would like to give Atheism its full due (devil’s advocate).

And, I’d like to be empirical, to the degree this is possible. So my questions is specifically, what moral advances vs. steps backward can be directly and solely attributable to teachings of Biblical morality vs. Atheism? ?
  • Moral advancements directly & solely attributable to teachings of Biblical morality – ending slavery, equal protection under the law for all people, the American form of self-government, ending of polygamy, ending of infanticide, ending of slave trade, establishment of private property as sacrosanct (thereby unleashing the grounds for today’s unprecedented prosperity)
  • From Atheism – ?
  • Moral steps backward from Biblical morality – ?
  • From Atheism – widespread dissemination of violent oppressive communism, eroding the family through free-love desire for “Freedom”,
I have begun to think Biblical morality v. Atheism is the greatest moral issue humanity has ever faced, simply because the Atheist track record is the worst of all time (USSR, Communist China, North Korea, etc.), and nowadays there are nukes. So I would appreciate any views on this issue.
 
There has never been a successful atheistic society in the history of mankind.
 
This is true, because largely the only atheist Societies have been ones that were forced to be atheist. I don’t consider coercion an improvement, and I’m sure you don’t either.
 
Greetings,

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut in this conversation. I am a new member to this site, so bear with me as I learn the ropes of this forum! I disagree with your claim that “there has never been a successful atheistic society in the history of mankind” for the following reason:

Some of the most successful nation-states in existence today are irreligious.

Sweden, Estonia, Norway, Czech Republic, & Japan are the top 5 nations that regard religion as being “irrelevant” in their daily lives. Correspondingly, these 5 nations also all rank “very high” for Human Development Index. I would argue that this is a fairly accurate, although certainly not absolute, measure of “success”. Likewise, the most religious countries: Bangladesh, Niger, Yemen, Indonesia, & Malawi all (save for Indonesia) rank as Very Low on the HDI index.

I do not suggest that religiosity is the sole defining cause of these nations poverty, but rather, I do not accept the suggestion that “there has never been a successful atheistic society” given that the most irreligious nations are, by at least several measures, more successful then the most religious societies.

Please let me know what your opinion is on this.

Awaiting your reply,

The Antitheist
 
Those societies are mostly secular (allowing freedom of religion), not atheistic, quite the difference. People there are mostly interested in this world, yes, but most will not define themselves as atheistic, rather agnostic. Atheism is unnatural to the human experience, while religion comes naturally. So we disagree, and that’s fine.
 
Last edited:
Alyosha1984 said:
Like it or not, one of the great gods of the past century is atheism, currently very prevalent especially among elites in America and Europe.

One of the most telling differences (in my view) is that Biblical morality contributed to basically all moral improvements in humankind … going back before Christ to the Torah. Contrary wise, Atheism seems to have done little good…however, I would like to give Atheism its full due (devil’s advocate).

And, I’d like to be empirical, to the degree this is possible. So my questions is specifically, what moral advances vs. steps backward can be directly and solely attributable to teachings of Biblical morality vs. Atheism? ?
  • Moral advancements directly & solely attributable to teachings of Biblical morality – ending slavery, equal protection under the law for all people, the American form of self-government, ending of polygamy, ending of infanticide, ending of slave trade, establishment of private property as sacrosanct (thereby unleashing the grounds for today’s unprecedented prosperity)
  • From Atheism – ?
  • Moral steps backward from Biblical morality – ?
  • From Atheism – widespread dissemination of violent oppressive communism, eroding the family through free-love desire for “Freedom”,
I have begun to think Biblical morality v. Atheism is the greatest moral issue humanity has ever faced, simply because the Atheist track record is the worst of all time (USSR, Communist China, North Korea, etc.), and nowadays there are nukes. So I would appreciate any views on this issue.
Click to expand...
I think you’re confusing atheism (and there’s no need to capitalise it) and secularism.

And if you want to list countries that you want to claim had a bad track record because they were atheist, then you need to find some that were voluntarily atheist. Not ones where the ruling group denied those under them the opportunity for anything organised that might usurp the ruling classes.

And just because a governmentt declares the state to be officially atheist, such as China, does that mean the country itself is atheist? The vast majority of Chinese practice one form or other of folk religion.
 
Greetings,

Thank you for your reply Dan. I think best practice is me breaking down each sentence of your reply one by one in order to provide a fair response on my part (as there are many things that you said that I agree with).
  1. “Those societies are mostly secular (allowing freedom of religion), not atheistic, quite the difference”: I agree that they are secular, and that you are correct in suggesting that secularism in general does not directly indicate “strong” atheism (the definite belief in the absence of a God). I disagree that there is any substantial difference in a “strong” atheistic society and that of a secular one. In everything but name those nations are atheistic… or at the very least, I think you would be in agreement with me that those nations are largely irreligious. I don’t think semantics are too important here.
  2. “People there are mostly interested in this world, yes, but most will not define themselves as atheistic, rather agnostic.” Practically speaking, I don’t believe that there is much of a difference in the beliefs of these two groups… although “atheists” may be more entrenched in their beliefs, most atheists are agnostics and most agnostics are atheists… I can explain more what I mean by this if you don’t know what I mean or if you disagree.
  3. “Atheism is unnatural to the human experience, while religion comes naturally.” I agree that there is a tendency to obey authority that has been ingrained through evolution in the human being, and this leads to the acceptance of religious authority and thereby religion by most individuals. As to atheism being unnatural, I would disagree, only because everyone is born an atheist until they are introduced or come up with a religious belief!
  4. “So we disagree, and that’s fine.”: Absolutely fine with me, I understand your perspective and I think that’s what’s most important.
Peace,

The Antitheist
 
I am not sure what atheism has to say about justice for the poor and oppressed.


The Bible highlighting more than 3,600 verses that wake us up to issues of poverty and justice. The Poverty and Justice Bible is your guide to explore Gods messages and challenges regarding the poor. Backed by social justice campaigners including World Vision and other leading organizations, The Poverty and Justice Bible gives you: Clear and accessible NRSV text Highlighted verses to clarify your understanding of Gods passion for social justice. A unique 56-page study guide to support your individual research and group discussion. Practical suggestions on how you can make a difference in the lives of the poor and the oppressed.
 
No, I am talking about the philosophical ideas behind “atheism”, not societies which are “secular”. Atheism’s precepts include that there is no God, no belief in transcendent morality (or transcendent anything, for that matter), no belief in an afterlife, no belief in divine retribution, no belief in universal moral codes… etc.

In Russia, atheistic communism was overwhelmingly popular for most of its duration. It was embraced widely by the population. The people themselves were entirely complicit in the coercion and compulsion. Even today 70% of Russians believe Stalin played a positive role in their country’s history. That doesn’t sound compulsory.
 
I don’t agree any of these countries can truly be called “secular”. The basis of the human rights credo is entirely Biblical. They might say they’re irreligious today, but their societies based on a religious Judeo-Christian foundation. How long will that last? I don’t think very long, especially since most of them are very young (post WWII) countries with little track record of dealing with major existential crises.

What rational basis for human rights can you argue exists based on an Atheist worldview?
 
Last edited:
Alyosha1984 said:
No, I am talking about the philosophical ideas behind “atheism”, not societies which are “secular”. Atheism’s precepts include that there is no God, no belief in transcendent morality (or transcendent anything, for that matter), no belief in an afterlife, no belief in divine retribution, no belief in universal moral codes… etc.
Click to expand...
You do know that only a very small proportion of people identify as being atheist? About 3% in the States. You seem to grant them a lot of influence.
 
TheAntitheist said:
Sweden, Estonia, Norway, Czech Republic, & Japan are the top 5 nations that regard religion as being “irrelevant” in their daily lives. Correspondingly, these 5 nations also all rank “very high” for Human Development Index.
Click to expand...
All five of those nations have a significant religious heritage. Shintoism in Japan has been a strong part of that culture. Religion describes practices related to the search of God and the meaning of life. Lighting a candle in the dark can be a religious act if someone hopes to gain inspiration from it. Human development and economic prosperity are not the only goals in life. Death will arrive for all of us and there may be an afterlife, a judgment, heaven and hell. Where did we come from (who do we thank for our existence)? Where are we going? It is good and right to ponder these questions. Words are a tool to convey messages but their meaning can be imprecise. Religion is the practice of searching for meaning to life’s ultimate questions and of responding to what we discover. For some, their religion leads to philosophizing about the meaning of life. For some, their religion leads to worship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:
TheAntitheist said:
Practically speaking, I don’t believe that there is much of a difference in the beliefs of these two groups… although “atheists” may be more entrenched in their beliefs, most atheists are agnostics and most agnostics are atheists
Click to expand...
I disagree. True atheism leads to Nietzsche-style nihilism. If in the big picture, it all comes down to cosmic dust, then nothing the atheist does in this life matters. Life becomes meaningless and there is no basis for morality.
 
TheAntitheist said:
Some of the most successful nation-states in existence today are irreligious.
Click to expand...
stoplooklisten said:
Religion describes practices related to the search of God and the meaning of life. Lighting a candle in the dark can be a religious act if someone hopes to gain inspiration from it.
Click to expand...
stoplooklisten said:
Religion is the practice of searching for meaning to life’s ultimate questions and of responding to what we discover. For some, their religion leads to philosophizing about the meaning of life. For some, their religion leads to worship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Human hearts are restless. Therefore, they seek things out. It’s a normal and healthy part of human existence.

The famous words of Saint Augustine (b.354 d.430) are applicable here:
  • Fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te.
  • You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.
 
Dan_Defender said:
Life becomes meaningless and there is no basis for morality.
Click to expand...
Don’t lose your faith, Dan. No telling what you might do, seeing as you’d then think that everyone’s life was meaningless and there was no basis for your moral beliefs. Chilling…
 
Greetings SLL,

If religious devotion was limited to the lighting of candles with no impact on other elements of life or society, then I would have no objection to it. I agree that those nations have a significant religious heritage, but I disagree that their religious heritage is the cause of their current success. If that was the case, then why would the most religious nations also be the most horrible to live in? I argue that it is in fact their rejection of religious practices and the adoption of a secular humanist set of ideals that has led to their success.

Peace,

The Antitheist
 
Dan,

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut although I disagree with it. If tomorrow you surrendered your religious belief and decided you were no longer Catholic, do you believe your sense of morality would change drastically? Thousands of individuals stop believing in God daily, and I would suspect that very few of them become morally reprehensible. I’m an atheist, and if anything, what I do in this life is more valuable to me now because I do not expect anything to occur after it. My life is not meaningless, I have a family, friends, hobbies, et cetera that are of significant meaning to me. My basis of morality is on the principle that life has meaning and intrinsic value specifically because it is irreplaceable. Not because some divine authority has commanded it of me.

Peace,

The Antitheist
 
I understand that there are moral atheists. But it is not a substantiated position. In an atheistic society, Nietzsche or just any anarchist would not be able to be stopped on atheistic philosophical grounds. Anyway I’m out.
 
Let’s agree to disagree.

Stay safe during this pandemic,

The Antitheist
 
Dan_Defender said:
I understand that there are moral atheists. But it is not a substantiated position. In an atheistic society, Nietzsche or just any anarchist would not be able to be stopped on atheistic philosophical grounds. Anyway I’m out.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that there are immoral atheists? And you are suggesting that you’d not be able to come up with an argument against (for example) a terrorist wanting to kill innocent people if you couldn’t base the argument on the existence of God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top