J
jonk
Guest
True.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Well, you may think so but what they shared with their religious equivalents was a strong belief that they were right and that the people they were destroying were not only wrong but that their very existence was, in some way, a threat to whatever was the ultimate goal.General point regarding Mao and Stalin being considered “religious” atheists because their philosophies were dogmatic…
The point I was hinting at was that it’s this kind of mental model that is shared - rather than comparing religious monsters with atheist monsters, perhaps we should be comparing them (together) with, say, the ‘indifferent’, or ‘bumbling’ or whatever. How many massacres have been launched by chronic procrastinators, for example? Or St Francis-type Christians? Or Sufi Muslims? Or secular tree-huggers?
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Yep. That’s what I was thinking you might be getting at Kaninchen.
This spirit of indifferentism. You can say that nothing bad ever came from it. But nothing good ever did either.
In my 36 years spent wandering my little section of the globe I’ve run into many people who seem to think that it’s best to not take a solid stance on anything. They’re just perpetually lost “seeking” the truth.
The problem with these people is they have no clue what they’re going to do if they ever encounter a nugget of truth. Instead they seem to pick it up, enjoy it for a moment, then when they realize that having a bit of truth means you have to take action in order to keep it, they quietly set it back down and pretend they never found it.
This spirit of indifferentism. You can say that nothing bad ever came from it. But nothing good ever did either.
In my 36 years spent wandering my little section of the globe I’ve run into many people who seem to think that it’s best to not take a solid stance on anything. They’re just perpetually lost “seeking” the truth.
The problem with these people is they have no clue what they’re going to do if they ever encounter a nugget of truth. Instead they seem to pick it up, enjoy it for a moment, then when they realize that having a bit of truth means you have to take action in order to keep it, they quietly set it back down and pretend they never found it.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I wasn’t going as far as saying ‘nothing bad’, just ‘nothing monstrous’ in the sense of the thread. I did include believers in my set of ‘nothing monstrous’ as well! It’s the business of molding the world, whatever the cost, into some religious, or non-religious, model that would seem to me to be the problem.This spirit of indifferentism. You can say that nothing bad ever came from it. But nothing good ever did either.
It’s quite possible to proclaim ‘truths’ and live one’s life in accord with those ‘truths’ and be highly influential in the lives of others.
J
jonk
Guest
Kan, I think see your point. You say that what they shared with their religious equivalents is a strong belief that they were right. Could that mental model be the belief in absolute truth, or rather, elevating a certain opinion to the level of an absolute or objective truth?
My observation is, though, that many atheists who have actually thought about their position do believe in an objective reality, and relegate only morality into the sphere of the subjective. They categorically deny the existence of God and believe that to be objectively true. It is agnostics who are more often the postmodern, indifferent tree-hugging hippie type.
Therefore, if the religious mentality is seen as having a belief in an objective truth, many atheists, and not only the communist folk would fall into that category. However, New Agers would not.
The argument that religion causes suffering, however, could be more of an attack aimed only at religions that uphold the existence of an objective truth. It is, however, moral relativism that truly enables dangerous ideologies. I’d wager that few of the deaths of the 20th Century could be justified under many religions and certainly not under the objective morality of Christianity. However, elevating something to the status of an absolute does not make it so. Many people like to point out that to have objective morals or to believe in an objective truth is fascistic. It is useful to quote Mussolini at this point:
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition. . . If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective, immortal truth. . . then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity. . . . From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
My observation is, though, that many atheists who have actually thought about their position do believe in an objective reality, and relegate only morality into the sphere of the subjective. They categorically deny the existence of God and believe that to be objectively true. It is agnostics who are more often the postmodern, indifferent tree-hugging hippie type.
Therefore, if the religious mentality is seen as having a belief in an objective truth, many atheists, and not only the communist folk would fall into that category. However, New Agers would not.
The argument that religion causes suffering, however, could be more of an attack aimed only at religions that uphold the existence of an objective truth. It is, however, moral relativism that truly enables dangerous ideologies. I’d wager that few of the deaths of the 20th Century could be justified under many religions and certainly not under the objective morality of Christianity. However, elevating something to the status of an absolute does not make it so. Many people like to point out that to have objective morals or to believe in an objective truth is fascistic. It is useful to quote Mussolini at this point:
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition. . . If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective, immortal truth. . . then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity. . . . From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Yep. And the laws we make based on those truths are mightily influential.It’s quite possible to proclaim ‘truths’ and live one’s life in accord with those ‘truths’ and be highly influential in the lives of others.
You can’t be passive.
See. What happens when you’re strolling along “seeking” truth and you find this little nugget that says, “Evil is real. Evil happens”? Can you sit passively while Evil happens all around you? You have 3 choices, join the Evil, fight the Evil, or set that little nugget of truth right back where you found it and keep “seeking”.
If you choose to fight Evil, you will eventually step on someone’s toes.
B
Bobby_Jim
Guest
First, to argue this typically involves trying to quantify “suffering” with “number of deaths”, which seems misguided. For example, the suffering caused by Mao is not limited to the millions killed at his hands, but extends to a whole society that was encouraged to essentially abandon their traditional morality as “old thinking”. The suffering in Soviet Russia was not just felt by the millions killed, but by the hundreds of millions more who lived under an oppressive totalitarian regime, unable to trust their neighbors. The atheistic communist regimes of the 20th century excelled at twisting the human spirit and destroying the bonds of human relationships among the living. And the people certainly suffered, relative to the theistic West in terms of standard of living.
Secondly, when the statement is put forward that “Religion/religious believers/theists cause more suffering than atheists”, if you try to push arguments about this atheist or that, be it Mao or Stalin or whomever, you should probably get the response that, “oh, well he’s not representative of all atheists because of this or that belief/political system” or some such. So really, the argument that is being presented is “Bad theists cause more suffering than good atheists”. Which really is not debatable.
As to whether something about being a theist makes you more likely to go bad, I doubt it. What is likely is that the vast majority of people, throughout history, have at some level believed in God. So the number of theists is much greater than the number of true atheists. So next time the question is posed, ask your atheist friend to present the appropriately normalized data. Something like the integral from the beginning of time to the present of (suffering per unit time)/(global population)(fraction of theists in global population), versus the same statistic with (fraction of atheists in global population). Really to make it more accurate you should do it on a region-by-region basis, so as not to undercount the suffering in less-populated places. Unfortunately the demographic data as a function of time and location is not really available - who knows what atrocities this or that forgotten tribe in some isolated location committed thousands of years ago - and of course we have no quantifiable information on suffering. Which brings me back to my first point - the whole argument is meaningless!
Secondly, when the statement is put forward that “Religion/religious believers/theists cause more suffering than atheists”, if you try to push arguments about this atheist or that, be it Mao or Stalin or whomever, you should probably get the response that, “oh, well he’s not representative of all atheists because of this or that belief/political system” or some such. So really, the argument that is being presented is “Bad theists cause more suffering than good atheists”. Which really is not debatable.
As to whether something about being a theist makes you more likely to go bad, I doubt it. What is likely is that the vast majority of people, throughout history, have at some level believed in God. So the number of theists is much greater than the number of true atheists. So next time the question is posed, ask your atheist friend to present the appropriately normalized data. Something like the integral from the beginning of time to the present of (suffering per unit time)/(global population)(fraction of theists in global population), versus the same statistic with (fraction of atheists in global population). Really to make it more accurate you should do it on a region-by-region basis, so as not to undercount the suffering in less-populated places. Unfortunately the demographic data as a function of time and location is not really available - who knows what atrocities this or that forgotten tribe in some isolated location committed thousands of years ago - and of course we have no quantifiable information on suffering. Which brings me back to my first point - the whole argument is meaningless!
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Moral relativism? I’m always uneasy with the use of “moral relativist!” as a weapon - far too often it seems to mean “if you don’t accept my/our precise set of precepts, understood in the way I/we understand them, you obviously believe in moral and cultural anarchy and spit-roasting puppies alive.”It is, however, moral relativism that truly enables dangerous ideologies.
It also seems to presume that moral absolutes are only available through belief in a deity, I rather doubt that.
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Moral relativism? I’m always uneasy with the use of “moral relativist!” as a weapon - far too often it seems to mean “if you don’t accept my/our precise set of precepts, understood in the way I/we understand them, you obviously believe in moral and cultural anarchy and spit-roasting puppies alive.”
No, I think the problem with moral relativism is not that you might believe in moral and cultural anarchy, it’s that moral relativism does not offer a good defense against anarchy or spit-roasting puppies alive.It also seems to presume that moral absolutes are only available through belief in a deity, I rather doubt that.
If you hold to moral relativism, and you don’t think spit-roasting live puppies is good, but another person does, what defense does relativism offer against such evil things?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.