Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[piecewise]

I think saying that Stalin was an atheist is rather stupid. Stalin was just an asshole, religious or not. Besides, saying that atheism devalues human lives is only true on the absolute fringe of atheism. Its like saying that all Muslims are suicide bombers or that all Christians want to kill the gays. Just because someone uses a particular belief system to justify his inhumanity doesn't mean that the system condones it.

[chaoticag]

True. Besides which, Stalin was a Russian Orthadox (hold on, let me check that), Hitler was devoutly Christian and the Crusades and Inquisition are Catholic. You might have a foothold with Mao, but that is near the fringeof things.

edit: Stalin is listed as an Atheist, so let's go with that, but keep in mind that the definition is very broad, since all you have to do is not believe in any sort of deity.

[Il Palazzo]

Hitler was vegetarian. Ergo, vegetarianism is to be blamed for his bad attitude and resulting millions of deaths.

[Neruz]

Stalin was alive, therefore being alive is to blame for those millions of deaths.

[Jackrabbit]

Hitler was vegetarian. Ergo, vegetarianism is to be blamed for his bad attitude and resulting millions of deaths.

He was not. He was, in fact, rather fond of meat pie.

[Il Palazzo]

Hitler was vegetarian. Ergo, vegetarianism is to be blamed for his bad attitude and resulting millions of deaths.

He was not. He was, in fact, rather fond of meat pie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_of_Adolf_Hitler#Questioning_Hitler.27s_vegetarianism

[Jackrabbit]

No, that's not where I got my information. I just did a bit o' googling, which I guess is just as untrustworthy. But the main things I learned that are also on that page is that Hitler's many biographers (or was there just one) mentioned his love for game pie, that he had a serum made from bull testicles injected into him and that he occasionally followed a vegetarian diet because of chronic flatulence.

[Kuraudo]

the Crusades and Inquisition are Catholic

The Inquisition is the best example of the brutality of the Catholic church, but with regards to the Crusades, my impression is that it had more to do with an attempt to stave off the Caliphate's advances into Europe than it did with any real Christian idealism (like any war, honestly).  The crusade of 1220 is likely the only crusade motivated by any actual faith, and that's assuming the crusade even really existed.

With regards to Hitler being a Christian, I have serious doubts regarding the validity of these statements.  Certainly before 1920 it is plausible, but this is the man who thought that all of Christianity was an invention of the Jews designed to inflict suffering on the world - not the most religious of statements.  I'm not a scholar on this subject, but the evidence seems lacking.

That is a tangent however.

The problem with Atheism is that, without a unifying philosophical force, one does not have a moral directive with which to do "the right thing."

Nietzsche recognized this problem, but was unable to find a solution.

Say what you will about religion's dubious validity in *any* circumstance, but it is almost certainly a net positive for this world.  An atheist does not have anything to back his morals up with - even the most ardent and "right" of philosophies falls apart without an all-powerful, all-knowing deity to punish people in the afterlife.

As an (unwilling) Atheist, the solution to this problem would most certainly turn the tables in favor of reality (ie Atheism).

Consider this, who is more likely to murder? The man that fears the retribution of the law (assuming he is not in a position to *make* law), or the man who fears the law *and* eternal punishment from a deity/pantheon?


The answer is obvious.

[Neruz]

The problem with Atheism is that, without a unifying philosophical force, one does not have a moral directive with which to do "the right thing."

wat

[Il Palazzo]

Consider this, who is more likely to murder? The man that fears the retribution of the law (assuming he is not in a position to *make* law), or the man who fears the law *and* eternal punishment from a deity/pantheon?

Yeah, but the man can also believe in 700 virgins waiting for him in heaven, so he might not give a crap about law.

What gives religion a monopoly on moral directives anyway?

[smigenboger]

Under the idea that murder is a bad thing. There are many types of atheism, and even some grey matter between the extremes.
Take the collective conscious approach. Religiously, it could fit as everything is part of the Deity, or atheistically, the collective conscious is not Deity-like. Either way, murder wouldn't make any difference, just the collective conscious has changed it's form, just like kicking a rock would, or something.

Sure, murder is a bad thing, as we are conditioned to believe and justify it.

(Arguably, all matter and everything is a collective unconscious)

[Neruz]

What gives religion a monopoly on moral directives anyway?

Absolutely nothing; the core of moral directives is emotion, not religion. Around that emotional core, society builds a more structured moral system beyond 'hurting friends is bad'. Religion has, historically, had alot of say in this moral system because historically Religion has controlled society. But there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that without Religion society would degenerate into an immoral mess.

There is, however, a reason to assume that without Religion society wouldn't forbid people from eating pork because God said so.

[Kuraudo]

There is, however, a reason to assume that without Religion society wouldn't forbid people from eating pork because God said so.

I most certainly agree with that, but I stand by my statement:

Who is more likely to commit a heinous act?  A man threatened by retaliation from the law or a man threatened by retaliation from both the law and the eternal punishment of his Pantheon?

Without a religion, where does one acquire any basis for one's morality?  Certainly, murder is "wrong," but why is this?  If one say's "Because I know it's wrong," how can that hold more weight than "I know it's wrong plus Zeus forbids it?"

Humanity is flawed - thus the mistaken "belief" in a higher power that supposedly knows better (or demands better regardless of reason) is most certainly a higher ground than merely "I believe" or "Society believes."

Furthermore, there are different conceptions on what murder even is - some people even have different ideas as to what constitutes stealing.  A nation can't supply the moral "backbone," so to speak, as to why this is.  People are far more likely to disagree with a Government's mandates than a God's.

Look at it this way, people in the United States have this odd notion that religions should be treated with respect - even other Atheists mouth this rhetoric - why? 

People lend more weight to a religion just by virtue of the fact that so many people claim to believe it (a supposition I highly doubt myself, but none the less).

I am perhaps not the appropriate man to voice this philosophy, what with my somewhat inadequate communication skills, but I think the truth behind this is fairly evident - if there is someone who could better voice this, I would gladly defer to them.

[Bauglir]

Consider this. Who is more likely to commit murder? The man who fears the law, or the man who fears the law AND believes he will be rewarded for eternity in paradise for doing the Lord's work?

Now, this isn't a serious example. Not all religious people think like that; zealotry like that is a human flaw, not one that necessarily accompanies religion. But that fear of punishment in the afterlife? Same thing. Whether or not somebody worries about long-term consequences is a personal trait, not something that goes with religion. And what that example DOES show is that people will generally decide what they want to do, and if they're religious then they'll figure out how their religion justifies it.

Morality isn't fundamentally based on commands given by higher powers, any more than it is on fasting or burnt offerings. All forms of morality I've seen have boiled down to choosing an ideal and striving to meet with it. That ideal is often completely arbitrary; God, human happiness, social progress, whatever. I'm not saying that morality is completely subjective (choosing Hannibal Lecter as your ideal role model is not a Good Thing, for instance), I'm just saying that the process of working out moral directives works just fine without religion, and equally valid bases for moral behavior exist in the absence of religion.

[Urist McOverlord]

The problem with Atheism is that, without a unifying philosophical force, one does not have a moral directive with which to do "the right thing."

This is half-right. Atheists do lack a religiously-based moral imperative against badness/wrongness/immorality/what-evil-synonyms-have-you.

However, that by no means implies a lack of any sort of imperative.

Societally speaking, crime leads to imprisonment.
In Humanitarian terms, commiting immoral actions leads to an increasing of suffering in the world, which is morally wrong because you are hurting others.
Speaking from a personal perspective, the golden rule comes into play. How would you feel if someone victimized you in an immoral act.
Sociologically, immorality is shunned by friends, neighbors, and other people. Loneliness is bad.
Even from a strictly practical viewpoint, the benefits of harming others more often than not fail to make such action worth it. And the cases where it is are why we have fear of the law.

Further, I hesitate to call fear-based religious imperatives a moral imperative.
Doing what is right from fear of the consequences is not making a moral decision, it is making a practical one. It is like the petty criminal who does what he does because he can "get away with it." Now, while it may be very hard (maybe impossible) to pull the wool over the eyes of the lord, any doubt about the existence of said lord (which, I would imagine, exists even for many Christians) weakens that imperative significantly.

Also:

Consider this. Who is more likely to commit murder? The man who fears the law, or the man who fears the law AND believes he will be rewarded for eternity in paradise for doing the Lord's work?

Now, this isn't a serious example. Not all religious people think like that; zealotry like that is a human flaw, not one that necessarily accompanies religion. But that fear of punishment in the afterlife? Same thing. Whether or not somebody worries about long-term consequences is a personal trait, not something that goes with religion. And what that example DOES show is that people will generally decide what they want to do, and if they're religious then they'll figure out how their religion justifies it.

Morality isn't fundamentally based on commands given by higher powers, any more than it is on fasting or burnt offerings. All forms of morality I've seen have boiled down to choosing an ideal and striving to meet with it. That ideal is often completely arbitrary; God, human happiness, social progress, whatever. I'm not saying that morality is completely subjective (choosing Hannibal Lecter as your ideal role model is not a Good Thing, for instance), I'm just saying that the process of working out moral directives works just fine without religion, and equally valid bases for moral behavior exist in the absence of religion.

What Bauglir said.