Positive Atheism?

[Gilbert_Keith]

MIrdath

I admired Nietzsche greatly when I was a Catholic.

I’m sure you did. And maybe that’s why you are no longer a Catholic.

Why couldn’t the same thing have happened to Hitler?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Jake

I do not agree that atheism is a force for good and optimism in the world. I don’t think religion is either.

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?” Benjamin Franklin

 

[Jake_Ellison]

I never said that all atheists are evil. You must finally admit I never said that. Go back a few posts. What I said is that atheism provides for no moral framework in which an absolute authority can be invoked against human atrocities. Consequently, FRanklin’s question becomes all the more relevant.

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?”

We found out in the 20th Century, didn’t we?

Religion provides a moral framework. I believe religion is a man made invention. Therefore I believe morals came from people. Therefore I believe that atheists can draw up moral frame works, even if there is no *spesific * atheistic framework.

As for atrocities, religon has its fair share. Read the bible. I think you’ll find that at least at one point God says the words ‘kill every man, woman and child.’ I believe that is in Leviticus maybe you could confirm that?

How can you say the 20th Century is showing us what life without religion is like? A huge number of the worlds problems have bases in religion. All the fighting between Shia’a and Sunnis in Iraq? Muslim and Christain fundamentalists alike? Don’t say Christianity is not like Islam, because Islam is yonger and is pretty much where Christianity was 500 years ago.

At the moment the fundamentalist ruler of Iran is trying to cause choas. He wants a war with everybody. Do you want to know why? The second comeing of Jesus is predicted to occur at a time when the world is in choas. If he can create conditions right for revelations, then Jesus will appear. Doesn’t say all that much for a religious world…

 

[Mirdath]

I’m sure you did. And maybe that’s why you are no longer a Catholic.

Wrong. Appreciation of well-thought-out philosophy, wordcraft, and humor transcends belief. Or at least it should.

Why couldn’t the same thing have happened to Hitler?

Hitler did not truly admire Nietzsche; his anti-Semitism and nationalism alone would not allow it. As I said, Nietzsche was strongly pro-Semitic; he was also extremely anti-nationalism. Hitler tore the late Nietzsche down and recreated him as a nationalist, anti-Semitic thinker for his own ends – much as he did with religion, if we ignore what he said about his personal beliefs for a second.

 

[Suat]

They have agreed only because they inherited a common Judeo-Christian moral code.

So before people are introduced to a Judeo-Christian moral code they run around murdering, stealing, etc? As far as I remember, Native Americans immigrated to the American continents long before Judaism was first developed. They all were quite capable of coming up with moral codes of their own.

The earliest discovered legal code, Ur-Nammu’s Code, dates back to ~2050 BCE. It includes provisions on trial You also have the Code of Hammurabi from about 1750 BCE and Urukagina’s Code from ~2350 BCE, which has not been found, but is referenced in other documents. At least the last two have sections concerned with family law.

The code of men marrying men, of abortion and euthanasia being encouraged by law?

Moral codes against murder, stealing, etc. Where abortion and euthanasia or gay marriage encouraged by law in pre-industrialized societies?

Evidently you have never read the Gospels.

I have multiple times.

I never said any such thing. I said they were atheists who organized the persecutions of religions. This is a fact. Why do you try to rewrite history?

I have never denied that Stalin was an atheist. I do deny that Hitler was an atheist; that is not rewriting history. Can you find a quote from Hitler where he labels himself an atheist? I did a quick search and came up with nothing, maybe you will succeed?

I never said this. You are being dishonest by putting these words into my mouth.

You are using the actions of a few evil people to try to justify your belief that atheism is inherently negative. Happy?

Now that’s interesting, because most atheists say just the opposite about Christianity, that it is evil because so many Christians have been evil.

Some do, some do not. I have already stated that I do not believe evil done in a religion’s name makes that religion inherently evil.

I never said that all atheists are evil.

That is true, you have never stated this.

What I said is that atheism provides for no moral framework in which an absolute authority can be invoked against human atrocities.

Perhaps that is because atheism has no absolute authority. As I have said, it is simply a position on the existence or non-existence of Gods. If you want to talk about moral authority, then you need to turn to philosophy. Most atheists adhere to some from of moral philosophy.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Jake

A huge number of the worlds problems have bases in religion.

They do indeed. And a much huger number of the world’s problems have their basis in lack of religion … as you will see by visiting any prison.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

Hitler tore the late Nietzsche down and recreated him as a nationalist, anti-Semitic thinker for his own ends –

Not really. All he needed from Nietzsche he got … the notion of a Master Race, which Nietzsche certainly supplied.

“Goest thou to a woman? Do not forget thy whip.” Nietzsche

It hardly gets more masterful than that.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Suat

Can you find a quote from Hitler where he labels himself an atheist?

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.” Hitler

If this doesn’t sound like an atheist to you, I guess there’s no way to reach you. Hitler’s actions would speak louder than any description of himself as a Catholic or Atheist. He was clearly without God (a= without, theos =god). Unless you want to make the case that he belonged to some other religion than Christianity, which I dare you to make.

Some do, some do not. I have already stated that I do not believe evil done in a religion’s name makes that religion inherently evil.

And I have already said that I do not believe all atheists are inherently evil. So why do you persist in making me say the opposite?

Originally Posted by Gilbert Keith forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Evidently you have never read the Gospels.

You answered:
I have multiple times.

Must have been impressed!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Notice this web site

positiveatheism.org/index.shtml

Notice the quote from Thomas Jefferson

Now notice what Thomas Jefferson really thought about atheism:

(Excerpts, letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, April 11, 1823)

“I can never join Calvin in addressing his God. He was indeed an atheist, which I could never be; or rather his religion was daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5 points is not the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin…. (Here Jefferson goes on to talk about the French atheists.) The argument which they rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is that, in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say, then, that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or creator of the world, a being whom we see not, and know not, of whose form substance and mode or place of existence, or of action no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend. On the contrary, I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and infinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, the generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms. We see too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power to maintain the Universe in its course and order. Stars, well known, have disappeared, new ones have come into view, comets, in their incalculable courses, may run foul of suns and planets and require renovation under other laws; certain races of animals are become extinct; and, were there no restoring power, all existences might extinguish successively, one by one, until all should be reduced to a shapeless chaos. So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite members of man who have existed through all time, they have believed in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe. Surely this unanimous sentiment renders this more probable than that of the few in the other hypothesis.”

So much for atheist scholarship at Positive Atheism.

 

[Mirdath]

Not really. All he needed from Nietzsche he got … the notion of a Master Race, which Nietzsche certainly supplied.

The ‘master race’ is a Nazi corruption of Nietzsche’s overman. As I said, he originally postulated that all – and he did not distinguish groups of people as being incapable – would follow and humanity as a whole would move on to something greater and more perfect.

“Goest thou to a woman? Do not forget thy whip.” Nietzsche

It hardly gets more masterful than that.

‘Wives, submit to thy husbands as to the LORD’ - Ephesians 5:22. Even Nietzsche did not compare men to God.

 

[R_McGeddon]

The singular myth of atheism I am most acquainted with (usually argued by the atheists themselves) is that atheists are atheists because they see no evidence for the existence of God.

Is it a myth just because you think it so?

Believe me, that is about the last and least important reason that atheists are atheists.

Believe you? Why?

All you know about atheists, is what the church has told you. You endlessly repeat: Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. as driven by atheism. That is because the church tells you that this is so, but what they did was actually driven by their megalomania.

There is a huge difference between atheism and megalomania, look them up in a dictionary.

As for positive atheism, it is neither positive nor negative. It just is.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

‘Wives, submit to thy husbands as to the LORD’ - Ephesians 5:22. Even Nietzsche did not compare men to God.

Didn’t see anything about whips there. I guess Nietzsche had a cruel streak.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

R McGeddon

You endlessly repeat: Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. as driven by atheism.

They were. And that bears constant repetition because you atheists would like to forget it and demonize ad nauseam the Christians of the Crusades and the Inquisition who were small fry compared to atheists Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

This too bears repetition as long as any atheist can stand to hear it:

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?” Benjamin Franklin

Try getting used to it. You’re going to be seeing it more often.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

R McGeddon

As for positive atheism, it is neither positive nor negative. It just is.

Nogod sounds pretty negative to me.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Mirdath]

Didn’t see anything about whips there. I guess Nietzsche had a cruel streak.

Nietzsche’s kinks are none of your (or my) business, and all people have cruel streaks, men and women alike. That quote isn’t even relevant to the concept of the overman anyway.

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?” Benjamin Franklin

You’ve quoted that four times now, without any indication as to its relevance to the question you originally asked and don’t seem to want any answer to. Either show how it’s relevant or come off it, please.

Apparently we’re expected to address it in one of two ways and fail so you can point and laugh and declare yourself the ‘winner’? Here!

Coming from Franklin, a Deist, I’d actually take that as a legitimate question, not rhetorical at all in either direction. It might be worse, but it could be better. We don’t know.

I’m loath to give up the cultural artifacts of religion, but other than that I at least seem to be doing quite well as a non-theist who isn’t around many outspoken theists these days.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

Coming from Franklin, a Deist, I’d actually take that as a legitimate question, not rhetorical at all in either direction. It might be worse, but it could be better. We don’t know.

Not sure what you mean by Franklin, a Deist. Do you mean that Franklin didn’t believe in God, or that his concept of God wasn’t traditional? I’m hopeful that you’re better educated in history than that, or how could you explain away the following quote?

At the Constitutional Convention, 1787, James Madison recorded these remarks by Franklin to the president of the Convention"

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.

So what do you mean by Franklin, a Deist?

 

[Mirdath]

Not sure what you mean by Franklin, a Deist. Do you mean that Franklin didn’t believe in God, or that his concept of God wasn’t traditional? I’m hopeful that you’re better educated in history than that, or how could you explain away the following quote?

(snip)

So what do you mean by Franklin, a Deist?

Deists believe God abandoned the universe. Franklin was one by 1725, when he published A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain (although he later repudiated that particular essay and moderated his attitude somewhat). Later in his life he apparently became somewhat uncomfortable with strict Deism and formed his own personal concept of God, one not bound to any particular religion.

A month before he died (1790), he wrote this in a letter: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble…

So yeah, he was a deist, and then later perhaps not exactly a deist but certainly not a Christian. His question still stands, and does not seem rhetorical at all. Keep this in mind: he was not religious, and he did not say ‘a world without God’ but ‘a world without religion’.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?” Benjamin Franklin

You’ve quoted that four times now, without any indication as to its relevance to the question you originally asked and don’t seem to want any answer to. Either show how it’s relevant or come off it, please.

Uh, you don’t see the relevance? We have been talking about positive atheism, if such exists. You guys then come back with the nonsense that Hitler was a Catholic, so how can religion be positive? So Hitler is proved to be an atheist (not to mention Stalin and Mao) and you go into a hysterical fit.

Then I quote Franklin to show that religion is more positive than atheism … and you go into another hysterical fit.

You don’t see the relevance without me explaining it to you?

Please look again at the title of this thread. Did you see the question mark after it. That means we can say yes it is positive, or no it isn’t. And we can bring forward our respective arguments.

If you don’t like the game, don’t play. But cut out the snide and juvenile ad hominems!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

So yeah, he was a deist, and then later perhaps not exactly a deist but certainly not a Christian. His question still stands, and does not seem rhetorical at all. Keep this in mind: he was not religious, and he did not say ‘a world without God’ but ‘a world without religion’.

Your retort is not adequate. Franklin asked for prayer and a clergyman. That’s a far cry from a man who is without God.

So yes, his quote is still relevant and not rhetorical.

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?” Benjamin Franklin

Live with it.

 

[Mirdath]

Uh, you don’t see the relevance? We have been talking about positive atheism, if such exists. You guys then come back with the nonsense that Hitler was a Catholic, so how can religion be positive? So Hitler is proved to be an atheist (not to mention Stalin and Mao) and you go into a hysterical fit.

You’ve proven nothing at all about Hitler, and nobody has used him as an example to say that religion as a whole is detrimental to society. You’ve tried to use him as an example to say lack of theism is detrimental as a whole – a non-universal example being applied universally, and further, with no incontrovertible evidence to back it up.

Then I quote Franklin to show that religion is more positive than atheism … and you go into another hysterical fit.

That doesn’t show anything. It’s a question. It inquires. It does not state, hypothesize, theorize, imply, infer, deduct, induct, or anything of the sort.

You don’t see the relevance without me explaining it to you?

You haven’t explained anything. You’ve asked a loaded question, and when responded to in ways you didn’t expect (ie, polite and rational disagreement), you panicked, ignored the responses, claimed complete irrationality on the part of your opponents, hopped up on the soapbox, and started ranting.

Please look again at the title of this thread. Did you see the question mark after it. That means we can say yes it is positive, or no it isn’t. And we can bring forward our respective arguments.

I have done so. You have ignored my arguments completely. You even asked ‘what is the good news atheism brings?’ at one point, in response to which I posted quotes of mine from all through the thread showing examples of this ‘good news’. You were completely oblivious, and I dare say it was intentional. In spite of having asked the question, you ignored all the answers and have since been trying to push the thread off your own chosen topic toward a discussion of the morality and viability of atheism. There are other threads for this already; if you want to discuss it so much, talk about it there and talk about positive attitudes with respect to atheism here.

If you don’t like the game, don’t play. But cut out the snide and juvenile ad hominems!

Snide and juvenile ad homs like ‘go into a (sic) hysterical fit’? I like the game just fine. Please play it and not Trivial Pursuit: Atheist And Theist Philosophers And Dictators Edition.