Morality Without Religion?

[barsapp]

AnAtheist:

Astrology, pendulum practicies, Thule society, hollow earth theories, rune mysticism, … were all parts of the weird mindset of a Nazi. Call that mysticism, sectarian behaviour, superstition, I don’t care, but that weirdo stuff has nothing to do with materialism nor atheism.

”Astrology, pendulum practices, Thule society, hollow earth theories, rune mysticism, …” As I said before “if you want to call “mysticism” some kind of cheap neo paganism…” The question here is that even wanting to destroy religion and burning to ground the churches, the atheistic ideologies in power still need to forge a pseudo religion. They hate religion… but they do not hesitate to stimulate new creeds, rituals and liturgies. Mao’s red book or Hitler’s Mein Kampf, it is not a new kind of gospel? The new heroes, are they not some kind of saints?

This neo paganism (intimately associated with neo National Socialism and Satanism) which is rebirthing in Europe nowadays means only a new form of Atheism.

 

[barsapp]

AnAtheist:

No, but to face the possibility that other people reach the same conclusion by other means.So you accept, that this moral fight can be picked up without absolute truth and morality? Don’t confuse Darwin’s evolution theory with social Darwinism. The latter was never intended by Darwin.

There is no “other means”. The only way to accomplish “Don’t harm others” imperative is conforming to “natural law”. So here both of us are in the same path opposing abortion. With “us” I mean theistic and atheistic people. Said this, it is also true that most of atheists are pro death, and most of theists are pro life. But this is another issue.

Going back to Nazi and catholic policy against abortion. This is quite clear:

Nazis: abortion ban based on eugenics and scientific racism only for Arian women.

Catholic: abortion is always an evil act because opposes natural law and means the destruction of a human life.

Do you get it?

“Don’t confuse Darwin’s evolution theory with social Darwinism. The latter was never intended by Darwin.” Yes, of course, I know that… May be also Nietzche never imagined Hitler. But, you know, usually people link ideas… The problem appears when they do not recognize that they are doing so.

 

[barsapp]

AnAtheist:

You say, there hasn’t been an atheist paradise state yet. Where have the Christian paradise states been then? The secular Europe of today is a far better place and time to live in than in the past, when Christianity was in charge. And when I look at mordern theocratic nations with adamant morals, whoa, they are good in producing suicide bombers.

This point will lead us to another long controversy, but… I do not know if you remember that only 60 years ago people were burnt in ovens near your home… In historical terms 60 years are nothing. Only 20 years ago (less than nothing) the whole world used to live under the threat of a nuclear war. And the number of mass destruction weapons is increasing every day. And the possibility of a chemical and (or) biological war also. May be you are also forgetting the silent carnage of every day moral relativism victory: one and a half billion of unborn human beings cowardly killed. May be you do not realize that at this pace Europe is going to disappear in a few decades. May be you have not noticed that Europe has become only just a nice perfumed corpse.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

A man should be considered for his actions more so than for his words. Hitler was a devotee of Nietzsche and I’ve proved it. Nietzsche was an atheist, and you’ve not denied it.

Nor have you been able to find Hitler’s gods that you say he worshipped.

So I understand why you should be tired of this fruitless discussion about Hitler. I’m also tired of it, because you just don’t seem to get. But there are no better examples in the 20th century of what atheism will do when unleashed on the world big time than in the careers of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Any religious massacres of past history pale by comparison … so I hope you won’t ever bring them up as proof that there is as much moral glue in collective atheism as there is in collective Christianity.

Now, back to the question of this thread … how do you enforce any collective morality with atheism? That is, by what authority do you establish a moral code sufficient to create not paradise, but at least the best of all possible worlds rather than the kinds of worlds Hitler, Stalin, and Mao wanted us to live in?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

• Force everybody to believe in God, force everybody to attend mass, kill every unbeliever?*

You pose the false dilemma fallacy.

It’s not a matter of either/or. It’s not a matter of complete worldwide atheism or “forcing everybody to believe in God.”

If the vast majority just willingly believe in God, there will be an authoritative basis for a collective morality … not a perfect social order by any means … but at least a better world than one without God.

By the way, when was the last time you heard of atheists being hunted down and killed in America. But Christians are being persecuted in China and South America and elsewhere all the time, while atheists are taken seriously when they petition the courts in America, if you’ve been reading the news lately.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

Astrology, pendulum practicies, Thule society, hollow earth theories, rune mysticism, … were all parts of the weird mindset of a Nazi. Call that mysticism, sectarian behaviour, superstition, I don’t care, but that weirdo stuff has nothing to do with materialism nor atheism.

I know you’re not confusing any of this with Christian mysticism either.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

• Force everybody to believe in God, force everybody to attend mass, kill every unbeliever?*
  You pose the false dilemma fallacy.

It’s not a matter of either/or. It’s not a matter of complete worldwide atheism or “forcing everybody to believe in God.”

That was not my intention. I was merely reflecting the issue, ***how ***a god-given morality is enforced, when only minority believes in it. Because this here is wishful thinking:

If the vast majority just willingly believe in God

,
In *your *god. People believe all kinds of things, what you need for your godly Utopia is that everybody believes the same. Salvation preaching religions are only appealing to the poor and desperate, who because of their miserable state are willing to overlook all the inconsitencies and contradictions of those religions. People, who do not feel the need of being saved, are not susceptible. So, if your premise is true, that we get a better society, if everybody willingly believes in your god, *how *do you get everybody to do that?

By the way, when was the last time you heard of atheists being hunted down and killed in America.

Hunting down heretics, pagans, and atheists stopped, when the Churches (i.e. incl. Protestant ones) lost their political power. In western Euorpe hat procress reached its climax with Napoleon. The clergy has already proven, what they are capable of when in charge, therefore I fear a theocracy as much as any form of socialism incl. the national one.

But Christians are being persecuted in China and South America and elsewhere all the time,

Which is as much a crime as burning witches.

Hitler was a devotee of Nietzsche

And I thought Hitler was a devotee only of himself…

Astrology, pendulum practicies, Thule society, hollow earth theories, rune mysticism, … were all parts of the weird mindset of a Nazi. Call that mysticism, sectarian behaviour, superstition, I don’t care, but that weirdo stuff has nothing to do with materialism nor atheism.

I know you’re not confusing any of this with Christian mysticism either.

No I don’t. But it all lies outside an atheistic, secular, and scientific worldview.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

And I thought Hitler was a devotee only of himself…

We should remember the famous photo of Hitler admiring a bust of the atheist “God is dead” philosopher Nietszche at the dedication of the Nietzsche Archives.

.

http://www.virtusens.de/walther/hitler1.jpg

And likewise Hitler greeting Nietzsche’s sister at the Archives.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3F_adv_prop%3Dimages%26imgsz%3Dall%26imgc%3D%26vf%3Dphoto%26va%3Dnietzsche%2Bhitler%26fr%3DFP-tab-web-t-286%26ei%3DUTF-8&h=397&w=575&imgcurl=www.mv.helsinki.fi%2Fhome%2Fakajas%2Ftekstit%2Felisabet%2Fkuvia%2Felis1933.jpg&imgurl=www.mv.helsinki.fi%2Fhome%2Fakajas%2Ftekstit%2Felisabet%2Fkuvia%2Felis1933.jpg&size=68.5kB&name=elis1933.jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mv.helsinki.fi%2Fhome%2Fakajas%2Ftekstit%2Felisabet%2Fkuvia.htm&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mv.helsinki.fi%2Fhome%2Fakajas%2Ftekstit%2Felisabet%2Fkuvia.htm&p=nietzsche+hitler&type=jpeg&no=7&tt=9&ei=UTF-8

 

[AnAtheist]

And I thought Hitler was a devotee only of himself…
We should remember the famous photo of Hitler admiring a bust of the atheist “God is dead” philosopher Nietszche at the dedication of the Nietzsche Archives.

Ok, you don’t get irony, but I’ll try again anyway.

Let me analyse your reasoning:

Nietzsche, who is an atheist, comes up with a philosophy. That philosophy has some influence on Hitler, who is a lunatic dictator and causes the deaths of millions, which is undoubtly a bad thing. Therefore atheism is bad. :banghead:

Wagner composed some operas Hitler, who is a lunatic dictator and causes the deaths of millions, which is undoubtly a bad thing, was very fond of. Therefore operas are bad.

And here comes the proof: stefanjacob.de/Geschichte/Bilder/Winifred.jpg
Hitler with Winifred Wagner, a daughter-in-law of Richard Wagner (said composer)!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

*Salvation preaching religions are only appealing to the poor and desperate, who because of their miserable state are willing to overlook all the inconsitencies and contradictions of those religions. *

Yes, Christ came to save the poor and the desperate brcause He is a loving God, not the monster atheists like to make God out to be.

*People, who do not feel the need of being saved, are not susceptible. So, if your premise is true, that we get a better society, if everybody willingly believes in your god, how do you get everybody to do that?

*We get a better society in the sense that America, for all its faults, is a better place to live in than the countries ruled by atheists for the last 100 years … Germany, Soviet Russia, China, etc.

What you conveniently forget is your history lessons. Look at the difference between the French Revolution and the American Revolution. One was dominated by atheists (French) and the other by men of various religious persuasions.

Which was by far the bloodier revolution?

Nor does anyone believe that the requirement is that "everyone willingly believes" in our God. I’d settle right now for the vast majority … at least that way you have a moral standard that even the atheists cannot escape because the moral atmosphere will be full of Christ’s teachings and they will absorb them by osmosis if by no other way.

 

[barsapp]

For our friend, probably also the French Revolution Regime was “full of mysticism”: do not forget that they established the cult of the Goddess Reason.

As I said before: even they want to destroy religion and burn to the ground the churches, the atheistic ideologies in power still need to forge a pseudo religion. They hate religion… but they do not hesitate to stimulate new creeds, rituals and liturgies.

Still the main problem for AnAtheist is his denial of historical facts regarding atheistic ideologies in power. And the catastrophe they meant to human dignity.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Nietzsche, who is an atheist, comes up with a philosophy. That philosophy has some influence on Hitler, who is a lunatic dictator and causes the deaths of millions, which is undoubtly a bad thing. Therefore atheism is bad. :banghead:

Don’t mean to rub it in, but let’s not forget that the atheist NIetzsche also became a lunatic and in one of his last letters to a friend, before being sent to an asylum, he signed himself “The Crucified One.”

Well, at last, irony of ironies it seems, he shared in the passion of Christ!

Requiescat in pace.

 

[barsapp]

AnAtheist:

Nietzsche, who is an atheist, comes up with a philosophy. That philosophy has some influence on Hitler, who is a lunatic dictator and causes the deaths of millions, which is undoubtly a bad thing. Therefore atheism is bad.
Wagner composed some operas Hitler, who is a lunatic dictator and causes the deaths of millions, which is undoubtly a bad thing, was very fond of. Therefore operas are bad.

“Hitler had a passion for reading, grabbing all the daily newspapers available at the men’s home, reading numerous political pamphlets and borrowing many books from the library on German history and mythology. He had a curious but academically untrained mind and examined the complex philosophical works of Nietzsche, Hegel, Fichte, Treitschke and the Englishman, Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Hitler picked up bits and pieces of philosophy and ideas from them and wound up with a hodgepodge of racist, nationalistic, anti-Semitic attitudes that over time became a die hard philosophy, later to be described in his book, Mein Kampf.”

I can’t find Wagner as a philosophical influence behind Hitler’s National Socialism project…

Be serious…

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

We get a better society in the sense that America, for all its faults, is a better place to live in than the countries ruled by atheists for the last 100 years … Germany, Soviet Russia, China, etc.

Killing the country’s native inhabitants and stealing their land, kidnapping millions of Africans and enslave them… minor faults of God’s own country. Yes, it must have been paradise for them. A christian society obviously neither prevents massacres nor slavery.

Btw, if Nazi Germany was a mostly atheistic society, explain this (“Gott mit uns” = “God [is] with us”):
http://www.mathematik.uni-marburg.de/~niederl/kz/gott_mit_uns.jpg
Atheists don’t put God on the buckles of their army.

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

Don’t mean to rub it in, but let’s not forget that the atheist NIetzsche also became a lunatic and in one of his last letters to a friend, before being sent to an asylum, he signed himself “The Crucified One.”

maybe we should conclude that atheists are also more susceptible to insanity…

 

[bogeyjlg]

A Rabbi and a soapmaker were walking done the street. The soapmaker turned to the Rabbi and asked, “What good is religion?”
The Rabbi said nothing and kept walking.
They started to walk through the bad neighborhoods. Again the soapmaker asked, “Rabbi, what good is religion?”
Again the Rabbi said nothing and kept walking.
They then started to walk through the slums. They could see the poor on the streets begging, prostitutes lining the street, and the sounds of murder in the air. The soapmaker then turned to the Rabbi and asked, “What good is religion? Despite all the religion in the world there is still all this poverty and violence.”
The Rabbi said nothing and kept walking.
They then came across a child playing in the mud. The Rabbi turned to the soapmaker and asked, “What good is soap? Despite all the soap in the world this child is filthy.”
The soapmaker replied, “Well you have to apply and use it first!”
“And so it is with religion.”

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

Atheists don’t put God on the buckles of their army.
*__________________
*
The most certain way for evil to triumph is to come in the guise of the Sacred. Which is why the pedophile priests got away with their thuggery for such a long time…

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

maybe we should conclude that atheists are also more susceptible to insanity…

Hmmm. Interesting.

“Religion is as necessary to reason, as reason to religion. The one cannot exist without the other. A reasoning being would lose his reason, in attempting to account for the great phenomena of natue, had he not a Supreme Being to refer to …” George Washington

There are those who are susceptible to insanity … those who have “too much” religion (especially bad religion) along with those who have none at all.

I suppose you agree, John, that a world in which God is never mentioned would be a world radically different from one in which we find many pockets of true worship here and there.

Or do you? Do you think a world without God would be radically better, or radically worse, or about the same as a world with God?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Bogey

Thanks for that folk wisdom. You bring us back to the theme of this thread. If religion is like soap in that it washes us clean of our sins, and must be used regularly too, we ask the same about atheism.

How does it wash us of our sins? And how can it keep us clean?

I have yet to find an atheist who can tell me. Still waiting.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

The most certain way for evil to triumph is to come in the guise of the Sacred. Which is why the pedophile priests got away with their thuggery for such a long time…

Now that is something, we agree on.
Blind faith and blind obediance *enable *those in power to guise the Sacred with their evil.

If a religion requires blind obediance to it (and most religions do), the possibility that its leaders and along with them their obedient followers were corrupted is simply to high. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that is exactly why I say, religion must not dictate society.

See, if your belief keeps you from harming others, that is fine with me. And if my reasoning keeps me from harming others, that should be fine with you.

Imagine a Christian state, where Catholics are considered to be Baal worshippers. In my ideal secular state nobody would bother, but if a certain type of Christianity became common morale you had a serious problem.