The central contradiction running through the arguments of many of those new atheists authors

[ThomasToo]

ThomasToo

*I gave a list above but if I must go with only one I will say the burning of 15,000 people at the stake in the first decade of the Spanish Inquisition (Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition, 62) and if I can be more broad the very notion of the Inquisition as a means to ensure and create orthodoxy by pain and fear (cf. terrorism). *

Too bad you have to go back 500 years to find 15,000 victims of bad Catholics.

I only have to go back 70-80 years to find tens of millions annihilated by the atheist regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.

I went back 500 years because you asked for one and only one example and that is an easy one. Stalin formed a cult of personality around himself with all the trappings of religion (which he learned in seminary) and much Nazi pariphanilia included the phrase ‘Got mit uns’ (God is with us). I will spare you many quotes from Hitler about how religion is important.

How is it that leaders in the Church, in committing evil acts–in the name of the Church I must add–do not warrant and official distinction and rebuke?

Again, you are way off base, blind-sided by your own bigotry?

I’m not bigoted, I just disagree with you.

Pope John Paul II has already apologized for all the past sins of past leaders of the Church. However, he did not apologize for the existence of the Catholic Church, nor should he have, any more than we should apologize for slavery but not apologize for being the United States.

Speaking of things that took 500 years…

It was not the Church that committed evil acts in the name of the Church, but evil men inside the Church that committed evil acts. Would you indict the entire United States for the evil act of a President or a Senator? No, you would indict the Senator or the President.

I’m glad you feel confident to answer for me… Unfortunately you’re wrong. If the President, in his official capacity as President, hired hit men and started assassinating American citizens I would hold both the President and the country responsible.

When Christ created his Church, he did not create it so that it could do evil things. He created it strictly for good things to be done in his name. Every good thing done in his name is godly. Every bad thing done in his name is satanic. Bad popes, bad bishops, and bad priests have been deposed from office down through history. The poet Dante even put some of them in hell.

Unfortunately Dante doesn’t really have the power to do anything. So you are unwilling to accept that the Church should take responsibility for its past actions–that is to say the actions of its officers acting in its name in their official capacity? I think this claim, right there, is the cop-out insofar as you can claim all the good and none of the bad.

Are you going to indict all Americans who ever lived for the sins of a few bad Americans? Then why indict all Catholics who ever lived for the sins of a few bad Catholics?

No; I’m indicting the United States for the actions of many Americans acting in their official capacity as officers of the United States. Similarly, I indict the Church for the actions of many Catholics acting as officers of the Church. We’re both blameless for the sin of slavery in the United States and you for the Inquisition but the institutions are both still culpable.

I do not indict all atheists for the sins of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. But they were atheists. If you want to see what the world will be like without any religion at all, you got a quick glimpse of the possibilities between 1920-1950.

Read some history other than the Inquisition.

You need to get over the Inquisition and see that the Church has always been vastly important to Western Civilization even when some of her members betrayed their calling.

The difference is there’s no institution of atheists to hold culpable; if there were you may have an argument–aside from the above that these cases are more symptomatic of religion (or the Stalin-esque cult of personality) than atheism. The respective nations of the Soviet Union, Germany and the People’s Republic of China are, however, responsible. If you want to see what a world without any religion would look like just click here. We don’t need to go back to 1920…

I’ve read plenty of history but thanks.

I need to get over the fact that your Church burned 15,000 people at the stake? No, I think that’s something onto which I’ll hold tightly. Again, if you want the right to shine a light on all the good the Church has done over the last 2000 years then you need to be willing to bite the bullet and allow it to bear responsibility for all the bad as well. One could apply your argument and say that all the good that’s been done is the result of individuals and not the institution as well but frankly I don’t think that’s the best way to go about it.

 

[ContegoFides]

Many atheists, myself included, feel that a world without gods or an afterlife is one in which we have more reason to help one another not less. In a meditation on the picture “Pale Blue Dot,” Carl Sagan wrote the following:

However, you cannot deny that this is a value judgement that you cannot prove. Atheism is also fully consistent with the opposite conclusion: There’s only one pale blue dot, but it will end, so what we do with it is pointless, so I will do what I want even though some others would consider what I want to be evil. I could make it simpler and just assert that the rarity of life is irrelevant, which is consistent with atheism. While atheism does not compel either conclusion, atheism is not inconsistent with either position. Thus, atheism, as a philosophy in and of itself, is open to the commission of the gravest of evils. Therefore, atheism is a bad philosophy and is to be avoided by humnas, even if it did turn out to be the truth.

You cannot separate the “one little question” from the practical consequences of the anser to that question. If atheism is true, then might makes right because, whatever your fancy arguments are, they all cannot be proven according to your own fundamental philosophy.

I picked the one point I did because it’s not oversimplified; 15,000 people were burned at the stake by people acting in the name of the Church with the Church’s support–implicit or otherwise. Unless, of course, you can provide me contemporaneous documentation that the Church did in fact oppose these activities (and yet didn’t speak out on the topic or recall/call off its priests who were involved).

You clearly did not read the link I posted. The Spanish monarchy controlled the Spanish inquisition, and secular authorities controlled the punishment. In addition to that link, here is another: catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0709tbt.asp

Excerpts from the link for those of you unwilling to use it:

There was never really something we could call “The Inquisition”—a clear, unified, consistent Inquisition functioning throughout Europe and elsewhere down through the centuries. By definition, inquisitions were local “ecclesial investigations.” Particularly in the beginning, they were investigations and trials conducted or overseen by the Church through a papal representative, the local bishop, or a member of a religious order appointed by the pope for the task. These inquisitions were rarely ongoing, and decades could go by without a given region resorting to any such trials. In England, inquisition courts waxed and waned; in the German states they were even rarer.

Inquisitions typically involved a judicial process that aimed at confession and conversion. Local bishops working with local authorities under local circumstances usually conducted the inquisitorial courts. Their goal was to secure a person’s repentance for heretical views or for engaging in activities contrary to the faith. If that goal was not achieved and the person persisted in serious heresy, he would be turned over to the secular authorities.

The Church conducted the investigations and trials. Punishment was left to the hands of the secular authorities. In Protestant states after the Reformation, the state conducted the investigation and trial and imposed punishment.

An inquisition as a formal Church process was not codified until the thirteenth century. This formal institution was primarily to reserve to the Church the right to address heresy, as opposed to mob rule and the oft-incoherent secular courts that had frequently handled heresy over the previous two hundred years. It was a particular response, however, to the Albigensian Crusade of the early part of the thirteenth century that led the Church to formalize the inquisition courts.

…

The Spanish Inquisition is the source of most of the myths surrounding “The Inquisition.” But the Spanish Inquisition was actually a mid-fifteenth century adoption of inquisition courts for a very specific political purpose. It was a government-controlled inquisition aimed primarily at faithful Catholics of Jewish ancestry. The image of a Spanish Inquisition burnings hundreds of thousands of Protestant heretics has no basis in fact— there were few if any Protestants in Spain.

Though first established with papal approval, the Spanish Inquisition quickly came to be dominated by the Spanish monarchy—not the Church. It had strong and ugly racial overtones as it was aimed at those of Jewish and, later, Muslim ancestry. While it certainly was a force that kept Protestant thought out of Spain in the Reformation and post-Reformation era, the number of those actually prosecuted for such theological dissent was very small.

 

[ContegoFides]

I need to get over the fact that your Church burned 15,000 people at the stake? No, I think that’s something onto which I’ll hold tightly.

The Church didn’t. Learn the facts.

Why don’t you hold tightly to the fact that atheism, as a philosophy itself, is open to Stalin and the murder of 20 million?

The difference is there’s no institution of atheists to hold culpable; if there were you may have an argument–aside from the above that these cases are more symptomatic of religion (or the Stalin-esque cult of personality) than atheism.

But you can hold the philosophy itself accountable. Atheism is consistent with any action or stance, including the “cult of personality” of Stalin. Given the lack of fear eternal consequences, and the inability to prove any code of condut, and further given fallen human nature, atheism is more likely than not to lead to evil.

 

[ThomasToo]

However, you cannot deny that this is a value judgement that you cannot prove. Atheism is also fully consistent with the opposite conclusion: There’s only one pale blue dot, but it will end, so what we do with it is pointless, so I will do what I want even though some others would consider what I want to be evil. I could make it simpler and just assert that the rarity of life is irrelevant, which is consistent with atheism. While atheism does not compel either conclusion, atheism is not inconsistent with either position. Thus, atheism, as a philosophy in and of itself, is open to the commission of the gravest of evils. Therefore, atheism is a bad philosophy and is to be avoided by humans, even if it did turn out to be the truth.

But without numerous theological presumptions you cannot establish your values in proof either. The golden rule does not logically follow from the simple statement ‘a supernatural entity (i.e. a god or gods) exists.’ Theism is not inconsistent with either position either. ‘Therefore, [theism] is a bad philosophy and is to be avoided by humans, even if it did turn out to be the truth.’ As I said above, compare apples to apples not the answer to one question to an entire philosophy.

You cannot separate the “one little question” from the practical consequences of the answer to that question. If atheism is true, then might makes right because, whatever your fancy arguments are, they all cannot be proven according to your own fundamental philosophy.

You don’t know my fundamental philosophy and I would respectfully ask that you not presume to know it. Atheism is only one small part of my worldview and cannot itself speak to moral questions as you’ve said. Similarly, however, theism is only one small part of a worldview and cannot (without theological or moral import) disprove the assertion ‘might makes right.’

ContegoFides:

But you can hold the philosophy itself accountable. Atheism is consistent with any action or stance, including the “cult of personality” of Stalin. Given the lack of fear eternal consequences, and the inability to prove any code of conduct, and further given fallen human nature, atheism is more likely than not to lead to evil.

So if we’re holding philosophies accountable do we hold every theistic philosophy responsible for the actions of every theist? If you apply your argument fairly (theism vs. atheism instead of your full theology vs. atheism as such) and hold to the above then you have some answering to do for 9/11.

 

[ContegoFides]

But without numerous theological presumptions you cannot establish your values in proof either. The golden rule does not logically follow from the simple statement ‘a supernatural entity (i.e. a god or gods) exists.’ Theism is not inconsistent with either position either. ‘Therefore, [theism] is a bad philosophy and is to be avoided by humans, even if it did turn out to be the truth.’ As I said above, compare apples to apples not the answer to one question to an entire philosophy.

I did not advocate mere theism, I advocated Catholic philosophy. Catholic philosophy passes both tests (intrinsically opposed to evil, requires active promotion of the common good). Atheism is - in a vaccum - netural to both, but is more likely to lead to evil given fallen human nature, and thus actually fails the first test.

You don’t know my fundamental philosophy and I would respectfully ask that you not presume to know it. Atheism is only one small part of my worldview and cannot itself speak to moral questions as you’ve said. Similarly, however, theism is only one small part of a worldview and cannot (without theological or moral import) disprove the assertion ‘might makes right.’

I do not know your moral code, but I will beg pardon for assuming that your moral code would say that what Stalin did was evil. That’s why I’m pointing to Stalin, because Stalin’s moral code (or lack thereof) is fully consistent with atheism - and you can’t prove *a-priori *that your moral code (whatever it is) is any better than Stalin’s if your starting point is atheism.

What I am saying is that atheism is actually the more fundamental question. If atheism is true, then that “one small part” affects everything else becaue you cannot demonstrate any of your other moral beliefs are true - you have no absolute reference point to begin with. If you claim an absolute moral reference point, then it is by definition unprovable (not positivistic), and thus need not be accepted by other atheists. If you do not claim an absolute moral reference point, then you are stuck being unable to prove that Stalin was wrong and you are right.

Atheism is not “one small part” of a world view - it is the defining world view because it influences, or at least has the power to influence, all other decisions regarding morality.

So if we’re holding philosophies accountable do we hold every theistic philosophy responsible for the actions of every theist? If you apply your argument fairly (theism vs. atheism instead of your full theology vs. atheism as such) and hold to the above then you have some answering to do for 9/11.

I hold individuals responsible for their *actions *and I hold philosophies accountable for what they teach. Since you bring up 9/11, Islam - by it’s own preaching - advocates its advancement through violence and force of arms. This *teaching *is objectively evil, and thus Islam cannot hold the fullness of Truth.

I’ll also note that the actions of the 9/11 terrorists were also evil, as was the philosophy they held (as the philosophy advocated killing of innocents). Interestingly enough, some Muslims would argue that the 9/11 terrorists did not act in accordance with Islamic moral code.

Anyway, I am not comparing atheism to just any theistic belief, but atheism to the Catholic Church. Only the Catholic Church preaches the fullness of Truth.

 

[Slowlearner]

Because it makes people happy.

Thank you again. I still have a followup, if you can, on your own continue to battle on multiple fronts here.

Why do you want to make people happy? Is the answer that because it makes you happy?

Then, for a person who derives happiness from causing pain to others, and he were in a position to do so without consequence (pick any bad dictator – atheist or religions, it does not matter), is there anything wrong or bad in that person’s conduct and if so, why?

In other words, is there an objective good and bad in your opinion?

 

[ThomasToo]

Anyway, I am not comparing atheism to just any theistic belief, but atheism to the Catholic Church. Only the Catholic Church preaches the fullness of Truth.

That’s my point. You are not comparing comparable entities. It’s like trying to compare–and to be frank I’m at a loss for a solid analogy–a Porsche 911 Turbo and the roll cage from an Audi R8 (NB I made you the nicer car because I’m in a good mood but let’s not read too much into this). We can compare the roll cage of the Porsche to the roll cage of the Audi but to try to compare a whole car with a part of a care (even a very important one) doesn’t work. Neither, I am prepared to argue, does comparing atheism (which can allow for hugely disparate worldviews) and the full body of Catholic theology.

 

[ThomasToo]

Thank you again. I still have a followup, if you can, on your own continue to battle on multiple fronts here.

I’ll do my best.

Why do you want to make people happy? Is the answer that because it makes you happy?

Then, for a person who derives happiness from causing pain to others, and he were in a position to do so without consequence (pick any bad dictator – atheist or religious, it does not matter), is there anything wrong or bad in that person’s conduct and if so, why?

It is a happy accident that making people happy makes me happy. I don’t truck with the utilitarians so I don’t think the total aggregate of pleasure is necessarily an accurate measure of moral goodness. I think holding doors, for example, does no harm and does some (small) good so there’s no reason not to do it. I think we’re getting to the point where questions approach unintelligible; when one asks, for example, ‘why do you want to be happy?’ what is the answer? Is there really a meaningful and insightful answer?

I think that ‘why do you want other people to be happy?’ is a question much like ‘why do you want to be happy?’ in that it’s a self-evident good for people to be happy. Does that make sense?

In other words, is there an objective good and bad in your opinion?

I would most certainly say there is objective good and objective bad though I’d say the circle of objectively bad actions is severely smaller than I presume you would. I would not, for example, place homosexual sex or the use of birth control in that class.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ThomasToo
*
I’m glad you feel confident to answer for me… Unfortunately you’re wrong. If the President, in his official capacity as President, hired hit men and started assassinating American citizens I would hold both the President and the country responsible.*

This is so absurd I can hardly believe you said it.

I* went back 500 years because you asked for one and only one example and that is an easy one. Stalin formed a cult of personality around himself with all the trappings of religion (which he learned in seminary) and much Nazi pariphanilia included the phrase ‘Got mit uns’ (God is with us). I will spare you many quotes from Hitler about how religion is important. *

I should, but I won’t, spare you this quote from Hitler in 1932 after he had assumed absolute power and no longer need the religious vote:

“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.”

*The difference is there’s no institution of atheists to hold culpable; if there were you may have an argument–aside from the above that these cases are more symptomatic of religion (or the Stalin-esque cult of personality) than atheism. *

Wrong again. Read more history. The Communist Party under Stalin did not tolerate members of religious groups and the Orthodox church was persecuted in Russia. If you were not a card-carrying atheist, you got nowhere. That is institutional atheism. Under Mao the same applied. Mao himself said, “Religion is poison.” Do you think that didn’t institutionalize atheism in China?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read more history than you have read by atheist writers!

 

[AntiTheist]

I’m a bit pressed for time at the moment, but I wanted to answer this question. I’ll get to the rest later.

When you are faced with a moral question and consult your values, I’ll call it Moral Decisionmaking, what reason or reasons do you give yourself for engaging in the process?

Usually, I have a goal of some kind and I’m trying to figure out the best way to achieve the goal. For example, if I want something to eat, is it better to pay for it, or better to beat up the hotdog guy and take his food?

Will the answer to the question vary among atheists? and if so, how?

Atheism is not connected to moral systems – atheists can subscribe to pretty much any system of ethics, from Kantian maxims to utilitarian judgments of value to moral skepticism to a brutish “might makes right” philosophy to extreme pacifism to anything else. The choice of moral system is not connected to atheism.

For me personally, I’m a moral skeptic. I don’t think that there’s such a thing as morality “out there,” rules that exist outside of human minds. What we call “morality” is our word for the kinds of behaviors that the human animal exhibits in his society. There are examples of similar kinds of behaviors in other animals – wolf packs, for example, have a number of rules that they punish members for violating (harming young wolves is, I believe, an offense that you can be banished from the pack for).

It’s not all that surprising that animals that exist in cooperative societies have rules for interacting with other cooperative animals. For me, the rules that our societies have set up are part of the environment I have to take into account when I make decisions. For example, it might be easy to beat up the hotdog guy and take his stuff, but 1) I’m not particularly inclined to beat him up and 2) my knowledge of the rules that exist in our particular society leads me to conclude that even if I were inclined to beat him up, there are easier and more satisfying ways to attain my goal.

Basically I am seeking understanding of how moral systems operate for an atheist.

Every atheist is going to give you a very different answer to this because atheism is just not believing in gods. It’s not a system with rules.

But in general, the reason that people address “morality” at all is that we all have to get along, and we’re all trying to figure out the best ways to do this.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

Atheism is not connected to moral systems – atheists can subscribe to pretty much any system of ethics, from Kantian maxims to utilitarian judgments of value to moral skepticism to a brutish “might makes right” philosophy to extreme pacifism to anything else. The choice of moral system is not connected to atheism.

Yes it is. Atheism allows you to invent (create, choose) your own moral system, from scratch if you want to. In that case, the morality chosen by atheists will not have any cohesive glue that binds it to any other person’s moral system. This is a fundamental defect of atheism, that it warrants moral anarchy … in itself a system that is systematically unpredictable and therefore useless.

 

[ThomasToo]

ThomasToo
*
I’m glad you feel confident to answer for me… Unfortunately you’re wrong. If the President, in his official capacity as President, hired hit men and started assassinating American citizens I would hold both the President and the country responsible.*

This is so absurd I can hardly believe you said it.

How so? Honestly. I am telling you what I think and while you are free to disagree with me–and I am not surprised if you do–but I would respectfully ask you to not simply reject my position out of hand and call it ‘absurd.’ If atheists did that we’d turn around and walk away as soon as someone mentioned Jesus.

I* went back 500 years because you asked for one and only one example and that is an easy one. Stalin formed a cult of personality around himself with all the trappings of religion (which he learned in seminary) and much Nazi pariphanilia included the phrase ‘Got mit uns’ (God is with us). I will spare you many quotes from Hitler about how religion is important. *

I should, but I won’t, spare you this quote from Hitler in 1932 after he had assumed absolute power and no longer need the religious vote:

“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.”

[citation needed]] Notice, however, that he did no such thing; National Socialism was built upon religious presumptions and exploited religious principles to achieve its ends.

*The difference is there’s no institution of atheists to hold culpable; if there were you may have an argument–aside from the above that these cases are more symptomatic of religion (or the Stalin-esque cult of personality) than atheism. *

Wrong again. Read more history. The Communist Party under Stalin did not tolerate members of religious groups and the Orthodox church was persecuted in Russia. If you were not a card-carrying atheist, you got nowhere. That is institutional atheism. Under Mao the same applied. Mao himself said, “Religion is poison.” Do you think that didn’t institutionalize atheism in China?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read more history than you have read by atheist writers!

I’m not talking about the Russian Orthodox Church. I’m saying that what Soviet Russia did, under Stalin, was to set up a cult of personality that was indistinguishable from religion except insofar as it did not espouse any deities. Just because a state officially denies the existence of all the gods humanity has ever believed in does not mean that there is not in fact what we can term a ‘civic religion.’

I’ve read history, in history books by authors whose theology I do not know and is frankly not important. I would, again respectfully, encourage you to read some on the philosophy or sociology of religion; there’s more to religion than things that look like Christianity.

 

[ThomasToo]

AntiTheist

Atheism is not connected to moral systems – atheists can subscribe to pretty much any system of ethics, from Kantian maxims to utilitarian judgments of value to moral skepticism to a brutish “might makes right” philosophy to extreme pacifism to anything else. The choice of moral system is not connected to atheism.

Yes it is. Atheism allows you to invent (create, choose) your own moral system, from scratch if you want to. In that case, the morality chosen by atheists will not have any cohesive glue that binds it to any other person’s moral system. This is a fundamental defect of atheism, that it warrants moral anarchy … in itself a system that is systematically unpredictable and therefore useless.

As I’ve said above, so does theism. Theism is the opposite of atheism; Christianity is simply an element of the set of possible theisms. There is nothing in theism as such that dictates a particular moral system without philosophical or theological import.

As such, theism allows one to invent (create, choose) one’s own moral system, from scratch if one wants to. In that case, the morality chosen by theists will not have any cohesive glue that binds it to any other person’s moral system. This is a fundamental defect of theism, that it warrants moral anarchy … in itself a system that is systematically unpredictable and therefore useless.

 

[ContegoFides]

That’s my point. You are not comparing comparable entities. It’s like trying to compare–and to be frank I’m at a loss for a solid analogy–a Porsche 911 Turbo and the roll cage from an Audi R8 (NB I made you the nicer car because I’m in a good mood but let’s not read too much into this). We can compare the roll cage of the Porsche to the roll cage of the Audi but to try to compare a whole car with a part of a care (even a very important one) doesn’t work. Neither, I am prepared to argue, does comparing atheism (which can allow for hugely disparate worldviews) and the full body of Catholic theology

I think I understand your point, but I am challenging it. I am saying that both atheism and Catholicism, as philosophies, are at equal levels of importance in terms of how morality will be decided.

Atheism allows you to believe whatever you want, and is intrinsically open to evil. Atheism claims to answer a fundamental question that has a huge impact on how you will develop the rest of your moral code. Catholicism claims to answer a fundamental question that has a huge impact on how you will develop the rest of your moral code.

Let’s make this more concrete. You say there is objective good and bad, but what is your reference point? How do you prove it? Self evidence? Your feelings? AntiTheist seems to hit it on the head with, “Every atheist is going to give you a very different answer to this [defining morality] because atheism is just not believing in gods.” To him, morality is about getting along. To you, there appears to be at least one absolute. Prove you are right.

You can’t. How are we to agree on what is right and wrong in the first place so we can get along? Doesn’t everyone get along if I wipe out everyone who disagrees with me? Clearly wiping out everyone who disagrees with a position is an evil act, but why? Atheists can offer no consistent, provable answer. Some atheists would say the why doesn’t matter - but it does matter because atheism allows me to reach a moral code where wiping out the opposition is a moral solution.

It’s not all that surprising that animals that exist in cooperative societies have rules for interacting with other cooperative animals. For me, the rules that our societies have set up are part of the environment I have to take into account when I make decisions. For example, it might be easy to beat up the hotdog guy and take his stuff, but 1) I’m not particularly inclined to beat him up and 2) my knowledge of the rules that exist in our particular society leads me to conclude that even if I were inclined to beat him up, there are easier and more satisfying ways to attain my goal.

There’s more to it than that. Your analysis implies that dispassionate self interest is the primary reason not to beat up the hot dog guy.

Nearly everyone has a natural internal revulsion to the thought of beating up a hot dog guy and stealing his stuff. Even most criminals who do this evil act know that what they are doing is evil, suppress their natural revulsion, and proceed out of their own self interest.

This natural revulsion proceeds from the natural law. I would say that for most people, they do not beat up the hot dog guy because it feels *evil *to do so (even if they do not develop a philosophical understanding of why), not because their interests are served.

 

[ContegoFides]

I’m not talking about the Russian Orthodox Church. I’m saying that what Soviet Russia did, under Stalin, was to set up a cult of personality that was indistinguishable from religion except insofar as it did not espouse any deities. Just because a state officially denies the existence of all the gods humanity has ever believed in does not mean that there is not in fact what we can term a ‘civic religion.’

But atheism allows Stalin’s cult of personality and his moral code (or lack thereof) to be established with a claim (or even no claim) to morality - and there is no way to show that Stalin was any different in moral principle than any other established athority, even those considered “good.” Atheism created an environment that allowed Stalin to flourish.

As I’ve said above, so does theism. Theism is the opposite of atheism; Christianity is simply an element of the set of possible theisms. There is nothing in theism as such that dictates a particular moral system without philosophical or theological import.

As such, theism allows one to invent (create, choose) one’s own moral system, from scratch if one wants to. In that case, the morality chosen by theists will not have any cohesive glue that binds it to any other person’s moral system. This is a fundamental defect of theism, that it warrants moral anarchy … in itself a system that is systematically unpredictable and therefore useless.

You cannot compare “theism” to atheism, because doing so assumes there is no actual Truth in the first place. Your own assumptions regarding unpredictable systems also assumes that the theist has made up his own gods and moral code, just as the atheist does.

All theists believe that morality comes from a Divine source. Thus, the source of morality is not the theist, but how they understand God. Additionally, theists are not as wildly unpredictable as you seem to imply. Even muslims believe that killing of even “infidels” is to be greatly limited. All major religions share aspects of the Truth, and are hardly wildly out of synch in terms of their moral codes. They do have major differences, true, but nothing compared to the random codes your argument would have us believe.

Likewise, the assertion that theism warrants moral anarchy proceeds from the false assumption that there is no Truth in the first place.

The real question is which theist belief system actually HAS the fullness of truth. That is why you must compare atheism to each particular religion - not atheism to theism.

However, I’d assert that even Hellenism (belief in Zeus) is better than atheism, because at least you have some moral code that you believe derives from outside yourself.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ThomasToo

As such, theism allows one to invent (create, choose) one’s own moral system, from scratch if one wants to.

Judaism and Islam and Christianity do not allow us to make up our own moral code from scratch. Have you never heard of the Ten commandments?

 

[ThomasToo]

ThomasToo

As such, theism allows one to invent (create, choose) one’s own moral system, from scratch if one wants to.

Judaism and Islam and Christianity do not allow us to make up our own moral code from scratch. Have you never heard of the Ten commandments?

I have, but while they are consistent with a belief in a god (not necessarily God in the Judeo-Christian sense) they do not necessarily logically follow from it. I suppose I ought to have added ‘or call divinely revealed’ to the synonyms of ‘invent.’ I apologize for the omission.

 

[ThomasToo]

I think I understand your point, but I am challenging it. I am saying that both atheism and Catholicism, as philosophies, are at equal levels of importance in terms of how morality will be decided.

But that’s simply not true. If we’re talking about morality then you should be comparing moral systems compatible with atheism to the Catholic virtue-centered approach.

Let’s make this more concrete… Prove you are right.
You can’t…

You seem already to have made up your mind on what I believe and whether I am justified in doing so. Attempting to justify myself to you at this point seems to be an exercise in futility.

… Atheism created an environment that allowed Stalin to flourish.

And theism creates an environment that allows for Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and FGM.

You cannot compare “theism” to atheism, because doing so assumes there is no actual Truth in the first place. Your own assumptions regarding unpredictable systems also assumes that the theist has made up his own gods and moral code, just as the atheist does.

You are dead set on comparing a specific school of theism (i.e. Catholicism) with atheism. As I’ve said you’re not comparing comparable schools of thought.

All theists believe that morality comes from a Divine source…

That’s simply not true. Plato wrote on the question in Euthyphro and Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling. Aside from theists who assert that all their god needed to do was wind up the universe and has no interaction with the human species. As I’ve said above, not all theisms look like Christianity and frankly your posts seem to ignore that fact.

However, I’d assert that even Hellenism (belief in Zeus) is better than atheism, because at least you have some moral code that you believe derives from outside yourself.

So would you suppose all theist philosophies are superior to all atheist philosophies? In other–mathematical–terms, worst(Theist.Philosophy) > best(Atheist.Philosophy)?

 

[AntiTheist]

I still don’t have the time to sit down and respond to some of the weird things in this thread, so I’ll settle with commenting on this piece of weirdness:

AntiTheist

Atheism is not connected to moral systems – atheists can subscribe to pretty much any system of ethics, from Kantian maxims to utilitarian judgments of value to moral skepticism to a brutish “might makes right” philosophy to extreme pacifism to anything else. The choice of moral system is not connected to atheism.

Yes it is. Atheism allows you to invent (create, choose) your own moral system, from scratch if you want to. In that case, the morality chosen by atheists will not have any cohesive glue that binds it to any other person’s moral system. This is a fundamental defect of atheism, that it warrants moral anarchy … in itself a system that is systematically unpredictable and therefore useless.

“Allows” is a strange word in this context. Atheism “allows” you to pick a moral system in the same sense that it “allows” you to pick a flavor of toothpaste – that is to say, atheism is unconnected to both questions. [Except insofar as an atheist would not say, “I will pick the mint flavor because I believe a god commands it!” In the same way, an atheist would not say, “I will pick X moral rules because I believe a god commands them!”]

Atheism “allows” me to choose a moral system in the same way that my not wearing a blue shirt “allows” me to do this.

There’s nothing in atheism to prevent you from making these choices because atheism is nothing more than a single position on a single question. The whole concept of “allowing” or “denying” actions is completely absent in atheism.

Similarly, the whole concept of “allowing” or “denying” actions is completely absent from a-blue-shirt-ism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

*“Allows” is a strange word in this context. Atheism “allows” you to pick a moral system in the same sense that it “allows” you to pick a flavor of toothpaste – that is to say, atheism is unconnected to both questions. *

You are right. I used the wrong word. Atheism actually forces you to pick a moral system, or even invent one from scratch.

Theism does not allow any such thing. Moral laws come from God above, not the god whose name is Ego.

That is why atheism is useless as a prop or glue for any moral system, whereas theism binds a people to common laws.

This is and always will be the central contradiction of atheism. For while atheism proclaims freedom from God, it really means slavery to the Devil who rules earth on the principle of divide and conquer.