Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

This is a dead horse that has been beaten into a bloody mess of guts and torn flesh. Claiming that atheism is a belief or a set of beliefs is like claiming that not believing in Santa Claus is a belief or a set of beliefs. Sure from a certain perspective and with a certain specification there may be something to it. By using the arguments by some here I can say that the reason Hitler instigated the holocaust was that he believed a neat, trimmed mustache was stylish. Sure he believed that and that might be a set of beliefs but how that relates to killing all jews needs extreme mindbending.

 

Joacqin, you have two huge failings in that posting. One, you seem to confuse (and equate) agnisticism (uncertainty, not particularly believing anything) with gnostic atheism (a specific belief in the non-existence of gods).

You then go in some bizarre direction to cause, and make no real comparison whatsoever (because you only talk about cause once) in an attempt to portray describing agnosticism as a belief (which I don't think anyone has) as crazy.

How does calling one thing a belief equate to another thing we'd all call a belief starting a war? They're completely different topics.

Pplr, the gnostic atheists who claim to be the center of all calmness and goodness, while religion is to blame for all wrong, had a decent footing until about the 20th century, but that's only because gnostic atheism hadn't been around long enough (as a serious school of thought) to do anything or go anywhere. Today, however, it's just plain dishonest. They apply two different standards of blame to show that atheism isn't to blame for what power-hungry atheists did, but religion is to blame for what power-hungry religion-ists did.

 

Actually, I think joacqin made a couple of good analogies. I think the real issue is that 'believers', like you NOG, really cannot comprehend an existance where there is no purpose to life and that there is nothing after life. Hence, the thought processes of an athiest (and it is moot to distinguish between gnostic/agnostic) is completely foreign -- face it, you don't understand and you will never understand; and that's because you don't want to. Not understanding is not bad -- but not accepting and trying to catagorize the athiest/agnostic into a neat little definition for yourself is not good (and just as wrong as the athiest groups who spout the 'religion is stupid' stuff).

 

T2Bruno,

I think that is a bit of verbal acrobatics. And you don't see people who do or don't believe in Santa Claus doing terrible Human Rights violations to each other to further their cause. Like I said before (some) Christians, Atheists, and so on have done terrible things to further their cause at different points in history.

One of the Atheists posting last night/early this morning (Aug. 9) just said that he would like if I and my "ilk" were murdered and that it is a "pity" it (probably) won't happen.

That is a lot of hate/anger.

If Dawkins is a Fundamentalist Atheist this person is like a Westboro Baptist Atheist.

I don't want anyone to get insulted like me or sucked into using up their time in the other discussion but it is a point I wanted to highlight because I think it shows something.

A lot of it is more about emotion rather than rationality and falls into that we are the good (or "rational") and everyone who disagrees with us is bad bias that I explained before. That is looking down on other people who are different and not a good thing-can lead to if not flat out is intolerance.

Also I would say rational people can disagree about a lot of topics. Religion is just one of them.

Just to be sure I repeat this one more time I don't think Richard Dawkins or this guy represent all atheists. But as with many groups of people there are some people that make problems.

 

T2, there's one huge problem with that theory. Many of the most vocal and outspoken Christians I've heard on the topic are converted atheists. They definitely understand the thought process, they lived with it for years, and they still say the same thing.

On top of that, I also understand the thought process, and I understand how you could look at someone who believes this and say they must be crazy, but there's simply more to it than that.

Lastly, the distinctions presented were actually ones I learned from Ragusa, not from other believers. They are logical categorizations based off of degree and type of belief. Agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist are hugely different, as different as agnostic theist and gnostic theist are. If anything, it's the distinction between agnostic atheist and agnostic theist that's insignificant (if you aren't really sure, does it matter which side you aren't sure about). The difference is that I have never heard, nor do I ever expect to hear, any agnostic of any kind say,"Anyone who doesn't agree with me on this is an idiot, redarded, or insane", much less the later continuation of, "and deserves to die in the street like dogs." Both gnostic theists and gnostic atheists have claimed the above.

 

They could be outspoken people.

On one hand is it hard to get inside someone's head and on the other you can try to walk in their "shoes".

I think both you and T2Bruno understand I mean by people making problems/intolerance. And that is a point I hope isn't lost.

 

NOG, the opposite of Atheism isn't religion. It's theism. Theism, like Atheism, is not a belief system. A man who believes there is a God but has no beliefs or opinions about God's nature, purpose, other attributes, or what the existence of God means to us has no belief system, either, since the only thing he believes is that there is probably some sort of God. The problem with my comparison, of course, is that I've never met a theist who doesn't tether his belief that there is a God to some sort of external belief system (ie a religion, a commonly accepted religious perspective on God, or simply specific ideas about God's nature, purpose, or relevance). I'm sure there are a few of them are out there, but I doubt I'll ever meet one.

Atheism and Agnosticism, on the other hand, are rife with people who (like T2) believe there is no God or (like me) simply do not believe in God. My non-belief in God carries no philosophical or ideological baggage. By not believing in God, I am not compelled to follow any pre-set principles or ideas. My belief that there is no God does not inform my decision to be vegan or to raise my children that way. If I changed my mind and abandoned the vegan lifestyle, my non-belief in God wouldn't inform that decision, either. My non-belief does not inform my views on abortion*, euthanasia, or my political viewpoints. These things exist independently of my non-belief in God. If my perspective on such matters were to change, that change would also not be informed by my non-belief.

Stalin and Mao were communists. They were Atheists, too, just as you are a theist, but these guys, like you, embraced an external belief system that made them more than "just" Atheists. As an evangelical Christian, you are more than "just" a simple theist -- and the things you say and do and the choices you make cannot rightly be attributed to theism. The same is true of the Marxist/Communist Stalin and Mao. The decisions made by these power hungry despots wielding near-absolute power were informed by Marxism/Communism, not by Atheism. Atheism, like Theism, is not a belief system. Communism and/or Marxism are (and could reasonably be considered an Atheistic foil to Religion), but while Theists who aren't tethered by their faith to some sort of external belief system are rare, similarly untethered Atheists are the norm.

Just as I've never seen a war conducted or atrocity committed in the name of "No God", I've never seen one conducted in the name of a God of indeterminate nature, purpose, or relevance in our daily lives.

* I used to be firmly pro-life but have since softened, believing that abortion should be safe and legal for the first trimester only. My wife, who is a strong atheist, is pro-life. Even though my wife's disbelief in God is far stronger than my own, she is still strongly pro-life while I am much more wishy-washy about the matter.

 

I see this point. Perhaps it would be better to define 'scientism' as the belief system formed around the strict disbelief in the supernatural. I say this because, for every gnostic atheist I've ever met, there was a belief system of how the world worked. They didn't all agree with each other, and some stretched it to directions others didn't (morality, for example), but they were all belief systems about the fundamental nature of the world. I suppose it is possible for a gnostic atheist to not form a belief system around that belief, but it seems approximately as likely as a gnostic theist not forming a belief system around that belief. It is the general nature of man to do so.

There's a problem here. You equate a belief system with a morality system (and apparently a political system). These are not the same. Every religion I have ever seen has involved a morality system of some kind, but not every system of belief; not even close. Just because your beliefs don't inform your morality doesn't mean you haven't built a system around them.

Now you equate religion to a belief system, or rather, equate belief systems to religion. You are correct that theism tends to bind itself to particular religions, and that is the nature of the beast. If you believe there is a god, you want to know what kind, to keep it happy, to show it respect, etc. Then, you associate with some religion or another, or build your own. What you fail to see is that atheism has the same problem. When you say, firmly, that there are no gods, you need something to fill in the gap. Science is the natural selection, even though it is poorly suited for the job. Still, if there is no supernatural, and the natural is all there is, the study if the natural (science) is the natural choice of focus. Science, however, is not an organized religion. As such, it doesn't teach any morality, not even that intentionally causing needless harm to a sapient being is wrong. Still, a belief system is not a moral system. They are seperate entities. You say atheists are generally not tethered to a system of beliefs, yet every gnostic atheist I've met has addressed the entire question of religion on either a basis of scientific evidence or of deductive reasoning (both of which fall short), and usually scientific evidence. They apply the test of the scientific method to all evidence presented. If it can't be readily reproduced by everyone, then it isn't reliable evidence. That speaks to me of a fundamental system of beliefs. Each may well form their own system based on the teachings of science, but the system is there nonetheless.

Now, I can believe agnostics, even strict agnostics (those who say we can never know), may not be tied to such a system of belief. They have no firm belief to build a system around (or, in the case of strict agnostics, the belief is of the nature to deny a system built around it).

Still, even the claim that religion is prone to attrocities while atheism isn't is faulty, as even you admit atheistic systems such as communism are capable of the exact same attrocities as religious systems. Futhermore, other examples of both atheistic systems and religious systems show great benefits to man. The only difference is that the religious systems have several thousand years of both, whereas atheistic systems are all relatively new.

 

NOG, a religion is a belief system. They are, in fact, listed under the definition of what a belief system is. Your entire argument is moot. You've seen me argue enough with the other atheists and agnostics on this board to know that we all have vastly different worldviews and senses of morality. It is true that all people have belief systems. In fact, we all have many of them. My moral stances and actions, however, remain independent from my disbelief in God. This is true of most Atheists, as well. We have many belief systems, yet subscribe to no external belief systems.

My disbelief in God does not inform my moral viewpoints (system of morality) or my political viewpoints. Your belief informs both. Contrary to your assertions, my views on science are also not informed by my disbelief. I believe science and scientists are fallible, just as you do, but I'm also inclined to be skeptical of "miracles". Then again, judging by your views on the limits of faith healing, so are you. You occasionally compartmentalize your moral beliefs in matters of law (ie, your support of gay civil marriage), but we all do that. I would never consent to an abortion (although my wife obviously wouldn't need my permission) and consider it immoral, yet still maintain that they should be legal during the first trimester. People simultaneously embrace multiple competing belief systems.

Atheism, however, is no more a system of beliefs than theism. The only area of my life informed by my disbelief is my decision not to go to church.

To address your final argument, Atheism can only rightly be compared to Theism. The point that religion has caused atrocity "X" while Atheism has done no such thing, while true, can easily be countered by pointing out that Theism has likewise done no such thing. I doubt we've ever had a war or wide sweeping atrocity committed in the name of the Tao, for example. Atheism vs Religion is just not a fair comparison.

 

Ok, yes, religions are belief systems, but they are only one example of it. That's what I was trying to say. Therefore my whole arguement is not moot, but entirely valid. Beyond that, yes I realize that athiests have differen world views, but the differences tend to be rather minor, especially compared to the differences between the world views of two different Christians (even of the same denomination).

Aside from that, what does it matter whether your belief systems inform your morality or not? They're still belief systems.

Additionally, despite what you may believe, my belief in God doesn't influence my political beliefs at all, save where morality is an unavoidable intermediary, thus why I don't support a constitutional ban on gay marriages.

To the final (and ultimate) point, though, I suggest you read (or re-read if you already have) the discussion pplr linked. That was what I based my statements on, and they appeared to view all religions as mere extensions of theism, thus anything any of them can be blamed for can also be blamed on theism. If the same standard is applied to atheism, it shows the same propensity for violence, hatred, and attrocity as theism does (actually, as you stated, theism and atheism show the same propensity no matter what standard is applied, it's just a matter of which standard is right).

Ultimately, though, it was a belief in atheism (perhaps informed by communism, though a careful look at Karl Marx's writings puts that in question) that caused many of the attrocities in the USSR, in Red China, in North Korea, and in India today.

 

NOG,
I think you read to much into history when you say that Stalin's mass murder happened because Stalin's belief system was influenced by atheism.

That's a mere assertion on your part, probably influenced by the view that atheism is necessarily something bad, and thus bears bad fruit - like genocide. While that is forthright on your part, that argument is by tendency circular.

History isn't mono-causal - and just ponder the question of causality itself. Did godlessness cause Stalin to kill all those people? You don't need theism, pantheism nor atheism to explain the murder of millions. The Chechens get uppity? Kill them, re-settle them into the steppes. That's a practical problem with a practical solution. Stuff like that happened a thousand times, under very varied belief systems, theist world views included.

_At the very least_ your assumption of a context between godlessness and atrocities is _quite_ a _gross oversimplification_.

Theism certainly didn't prevent the Europeans from butchering away one third of Germany's population during the 30 years war. If anything, theist belief systems (Protestantism vs. Catholicism) were conscripted to encourage the carnage. If a belief in god is no insurance against such accidents of history, how can the absence of it be a guarantee?

 

Absolutely false. These atrocities are caused, ultimately, by greed. People do terrible things to each other for the most inane reasons -- even those who profess a belief in God.

 

It doesn't appear NOG is saying that people haven't killed out of a belief in God. The argument put forward a number times on the other site (between insults) is that atheism cannot be one of the "inane" reasons for an atrocity while theism can be.

He tried to say that either all of the various bad and nasty things done in the cause of religion count as well as those bad and nasty things done in the cause of atheism or neither count. Either both in or both out. Thus the same standard is used to hold each side accountable and innocent or guilty.

I can believe someone is enough of an ideologue and bought enough into a biased system of us good & them bad that he/she will do things to the "bad" without a profit motive.

By the way NOG, I think it is morally bad to treat gay people different than straight. I thank you for respecting my moral codes enough that even if you don't agree you see the disagreement (and I'm not saying there is one) as reason enough not to have one side impose itself on another.

 

Why can't the practical application of atheism or theism be just another inane reason?

I'd wager that that dad who chose to pray over the sickness that led to the eventual death of his daughter also didn't do so for religious reasons but indeed, as the prosecutor charged, out of almost hubristic pride that he alone got the Bible right which told him that God would save her. Alas, he erred, and God didn't, and his daughter died. Deep and sincere piety can amount to deep inanity.

I argue that one sees that with the Taliban all the time - or just recall the jaw dropping episode of outraged Al Qaeda zealots killing female goats in heat for ... indecency, invoking the perfectly reasonable and justified wrath of their Iraqi tribal hosts. And deep and sincere atheism, however 'reasonable', can express itself easily in comparably inane acts, like the mindless destruction of priceless religious cultural treasures during the French revolution.

I concede I may be wrong, but I feel that he implies that theism gives a moral compass that atheism lacks, and that thus atheism is likelier to result in atrocities than theism - just look at that neo-pagan Hitler and Stalin the atheist. I don't buy that one, no matter whether NOG actually meant that or didn't And I don't think that atheism must necessarily be devoid of a moral compass, just like I don't think that piety inevitably leads to inanity.

But before I go entirely on a fishing expedition, I'd like to ask NOG to explain, again perhaps, what he meant to say.

 

Ragusa. I totally agree that a lot of things done in the name of religion or atheism are inane (especially when they are also terrible/destructive).

My point was that the two weren't being treated with the same standards.

Maybe I read what I wanted him to say into NOG's comment but that is what I was thinking.

 

Pplr there are no double standards. There are atheists who have committed plenty of atrocities but very few (or none) atrocities committed in the name of atheism. Possibly a church or two burnt down, a few clerics persecuted but nothing big. This has been covered though. A lack of something does not inspire you to do much of anything which really has been one of the problems with atheism. It is a lack of a belief and thus it is not really a huge part of peoples identity. People do not go out and kill people because they do not believe in something but they sure as hell are capable of going out and killing because they have a strong belief in something be it Christianity, Islam, Communism or Capitalism.

This is why I find people like Dawkins to be very useful and nescessary, they stand up against the religionists. Most atheists just don't care about those issues enough to even be aware of them and thus the religionists tend to get to set the agenda.

 

That is an argument made by verbal semantics rather than looking at the deeds done.

Not to , but you should really read through the wikipedia listing on the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church as it was persecuted by the Communist government. Possibly the history of "State Atheism" too.

And

There is a belief here that the "religionists" need standing up to. It may not have an ism name like Communism but it is there-a political agenda even if portrayed as defensive.

The first 2 are religions and therefor not something an atheist can be part of and still be "atheist" in the general sense of the word. The 3rd claims to be atheist and therefore (a vein of) atheism put into practice. The 4th is not generally thought of as religious in nature so an atheist may embrace or oppose it without compromising any "lack of belief".

 

Exactly, did you even read what I wrote? My point was that atheism isnt an inspiring set of beliefs so atheists generally do not care about issues of faith and religion and I find Dawkins to be a useful figure to spark interest and debate. I think I am going to bow out though, sooner or later these discussions always make me lose what little faith I have in humanity.

 

No, Ragusa, not at all. My position is informed by the fact that Stalin:
a.) wanted complete control
b.) chose not to use the control of the Church (as so many dictators before him did) but instead to destroy it.

I'm also not saying all atheism results in attrocities. Just like there are religious groups that have never murdered thousands, there are atheistic groups that haven't as well. I'm just talking about one or two examples where it did happen.

No, history isn't mono-causal. I'm sure there were a number of things that informed Stalin's decisions to murder people for their religion (and I'm specifically talking about the religious persecution, not the ethnic or societal persecution), but atheism was one of them. All I'm saying is that atheism is what drove the specific targetting of religious groups.

One, I'm not assuming anything, but going from historical evidence. Two, again, I'm not saying that's all it was. I'm not arguing atheism = attrocities. I'm arguing that atheism isn't immune to attrocities.

Yes, you're exactly right. Theism can be turned to attrocities and used to drive millions to terrible things. I'd even argue it can happen just as easily to theism as it can to atheism.

You haven't been paying attention to any of my arguement, have you? Look again:

The only difference between theism and atheism that I can see on the issue of attrocities is that theism has a several thousand year long track record, whereas atheism basically has a little over 100. The two seem to work the same way, though.

My only problem with that is Mussolini. His greed was just as powerful as Hitler's and Stalin's. His terrors just as bad. He chose to work with the church and use it's power, though, instead of attacking it. There wasn't much religious persecution in Spain under him (at least, compared to Stalin). Now, sure, Mussolini had his own attrocities, but the ones that specifically targeted religious groups could only be motivated through atheistic beliefs (i.e. the view that all religion is the enemy).

That's my point! It can! The people in that discussion, though, didn't seem to think atheism was possibly to blame for anything.

Wow, I'm glad you asked. I'm not sure where you got what you got, but you seriously misread me. I hope the above has cleared things up a little.

So, China's summary execution of just about anyone who openly supports religion isn't done in the name of atheism? Sure, it's atheism in communism, but it's still atheism (especially considering what Marxist communism actually says about religion)

I'm sorry, Joacqin, but this is 100% wrong. History shows that people are perfectly willing to commit attrocities on anyone who is different for any reason, whether that be a different religion, the lack of religion, the presence of religion, skin color, nose shape, heredity, land they were born on, or anything else. The fact is that anyone who thinks everyone else is wrong is prone to do something about it. Yes, atheists have gone to extreme efforts to persecute theists in the past. I'm not talking about a few churches burnt here in the US (that's bad enough though), but millions of people executed for nothing more than following a religion in USSR, in several modern-day eastern block states, in China today, in North Korea today, and in parts of India today.

Joacqin, most theists don't honestly care enough to do anything about it. Dawkins in just like Falwell. The only difference is there are more theists than atheists, so there are more vocal theists than there are vocal atheists.

 

What a suprise, yet another thread gets handed over to the 'you're a heathen/you're a freaky bible basher' crew *yawn*