The Trouble with Atheism

robindch · 21-12-2006 4:28pm

> They're one of the few that claim 100% correctness and completeness of
> their texts. Its finished and perfect. Nothing about the Koran can ever change.

...because I don't believe it needs to. AFAIK, most muslims deal with internal koranic contradictions in a fairly neat way -- anything that was written further on overrides anything written earlier on. Hence the different interpretations available between the earlier peaceful phase versus the later expansionist phase. And, just as with the bible, you can choose quotations to back up the position to which you're pre-disposed -- it's all there if you look hard enough, and adopt a sufficiently flexible approach to the meaning of words.

pH · 21-12-2006 7:51pm

I know we're way off topic, but the program is on again late tonight if anyone wants to video it.

DOCUMENTARY: The Trouble With Atheism
On: Channel 4 (104)
Date: Friday 22nd December 2006
Time: 02:20 to 03:20 (1 hour long)

Another chance to see Monday's programme. Far from being an antidote to religious fundamentalism, Rod Liddle sees 21st century atheism as sharing many characteristics with the very belief systems it opposes. As he argues in this authored film, those that turn to atheism for a rational, logical and moderate approach to modern problems are in for a shock; atheism too has its high priests, dogmas and beliefs as much as any fundamentalist religion.
(Repeat, Watch Online, Subtitles, 4 Star)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide

Dave! · 21-12-2006 10:31pm

joe_chicken wrote:

I'm not too sure...

But my question was more from a moralistic stand point, so I won't veer off course:

Why aren't you sure? Has science not explained most everything else about the physical world? If you don't understand something, do you read a science book or a bible? Why would science explain 99% of things but not the last 1%? Just because it's a difficult question?

joe_chicken wrote:

I suppose that's just another point we disagree on that neither of us can prove.

Unfortunately I'm not an anthropologist so I'm not well read enough to go any further, okey doke.

joe_chicken wrote:

I've never refuted this point, it seems many people on here think I have. The point I'm making is that religion was there.... it did effect our morals (again... it didn't give us morality)... and now it's gone

So we had morals before religion, then religion came and affected the morals, it left and now we are immoral...?

How did religion affect our morals? Is it not more plausible that religion was shaped BY our existing morals? Since it was written by humans, whom already had morals. Its growth in popularity put it into a position of power, so of course it affected us in some respects, but not necessarily in a good way.

Since you (I understand) have said that religion is no longer our moral guide, but it previously was -- why are we now arguably more moral than when religion was in its prime? (eg. death penalty is gone, chauvinism is illegal, gay-bashing is illegal)

joe_chicken wrote:

Ok... so you're arguing that religion was built around a frame of morals?... I completely agree.

I'm arguing that morals were there before religion, so religion adopted the already existing morals so as to contextualise the whole idea.

So I gather that you're accepting that:

1. Morals existed before religion (you've stated this)
2. Religion adopted EXISTING MORALS
3. Moral evolution continued despite the existance of religion

joe_chicken wrote:

I've separated the sentence because I think you are making 2 points.

I think religion served a number of purposes, including 1) To hold some kind of moral teachings (your first point) 2) To explain the universe (your second point)

Religion's purpose was to explain the universe. Morals already existed, so they're irrelevent for religion. Religion was created by humans, whom have morals -- so religion merely follows the already existing trend of moral change.

My point is that religion does not set the example, it follows it. If it doesn't adapt then it becomes irrelevent.

joe_chicken wrote:

So you're saying that morality in religion is what made it popular?
I would argue that that's a pretty good sign that people need religion for at least some kind of moral guidance.

I'm saying that the fact that religion attempts to follow the existing moral trend in society is an element of its popularity. If it's not in touch with its followers, then it will lose them. Perhaps that's why the Catholic Church is losing power nowadays -- because it's no longer considered a moral thing to say that homosexuality is an abomination, or to keep women from certain positions.

Can you please explain to me the following:

1. You have accepted that morals existed before religion
2. We have established that religion merely follows societal values, and does not set them
3. You have made the point that religion no longer exists as a moral guide
4. How can you then continue to argue that people need religion for moral guidance? You have just contradicted that position by stating that you accept that morals existed before religion. And you also said that religion is no longer a moral guide -- so why are we still moral?

joe_chicken wrote:

But society itself was then effected by religion. I find it hard to believe that you can doubt that. But hey! Another thing we disagree on

It was affected, yep. I'm not going to pretend that religion didn't play a part in human history -- that would be revisionism. Exactly how good a role did it play, though?

As you have pointed out time and again, we were moralistic before the advent of religion.

We are moralistic after religion (...has ceased to wield power).

The Catholic Church is against homosexuality -- society is not.
The church is against women priests -- society is not.
The church is against the use of condoms -- society is not.

Surely at least the first 2 would be considered black and white issues. Why does the church oppose existing moral values? Wouldn't that make it immoral?

And that's just Catholicism...

joe_chicken wrote:

Ok... so at worst religion was like a mirror that reflected the morality of society.

Indeed, so you've again accepted that religion didn't set any morals, and merely continued to try and keep up with what already existed in society...

joe_chicken wrote:

We obviously needed this, and I would argue that we still do.

But hang on -- why did we need this? Since morals exist without religion.

And hang on -- why do we STILL need this, despite the fact that religion is in conflict with black and white issues such as homosexuality?

joe_chicken wrote:

If you agree, where do we get that mirror from these days?
TV?... has TV killed God? [evil music]dun dun duuuun[/evil music]

I don't agree. We get our morals from the same place we've always gotten them -- from societal interaction. Society has evolved along with the human brain, and our increased awareness of feelings, and empathy, and the consequences of being what we call immoral, have created an ephemeral system that the vast majority of us obey.

joe_chicken · 23-12-2006 1:46pm

DaveMcG wrote:

Why aren't you sure? Has science not explained most everything else about the physical world? If you don't understand something, do you read a science book or a bible? Why would science explain 99% of things but not the last 1%? Just because it's a difficult question?

Life is in the 1%.

DaveMcG wrote:

So we had morals before religion, then religion came and affected the morals, it left and now we are immoral...?

Nope...

we had morals before religion, then religion came, we used it to reinforce and teach what we already knew, it left, and we've replaced it with Barney

Dave! · 23-12-2006 2:04pm

joe_chicken wrote:

Life is in the 1%.

So science can explain everything in the universe -- except life?

Have you any reason to believe that? Any evidence to support that point of view?

Or is it just the case that we haven't explained it as of yet, so you're jumping the gun because you've no patience?

joe_chicken wrote:

we had morals before religion

Agreed

joe_chicken wrote:

then religion came, we used it to reinforce and teach what we already knew

But we had morals before religion... we have morals after religion...

How are you coming to the conclusion that religion teaches morals? It doesn't make any sense.

joe_chicken wrote:

it left, and we've replaced it with Barney

...and presumably all hell has broken loose; people are pillaging and murdering each other left, right and centre; rapes have become an important daily ritual; looting is in widespread practice... etc...

Can you tell me why we're not immoral now? And why does religion take an immoral stance on homosexuality, which is in conflict with human morals?

You don't have to keep arguing this because you started it, you can change your mind if you like!

Matamoros · 23-12-2006 2:39pm

Many people believe in the existence of Gods. Others believe in Luck or Destiny. Many people cannot face the truth. We avoid unpleasant things in life. We remain child-like. We cannot force ourselves to take the red pill until we have to.

In this case, is religious faith surprising to us? Then, what is our problem?

Are they vetoing Stem Cell research and attacking New York in planes amongst many other things? Yes they are. We do not agree with that. We have many issues with religion. There are many of them. What do we do?

Being a person of Reason should be enough. Logic and Rhetoric equip me to do great things. Atheists, Agnostics and rational people everywhere should be excelling in all fields?

Dave! · 23-12-2006 4:38pm

Matamoros wrote:

Many people believe in the existence of Gods. Others believe in Luck or Destiny. Many people cannot face the truth. We avoid unpleasant things in life. We remain child-like. We cannot force ourselves to take the red pill until we have to.

In this case, is religious faith surprising to us? Then, what is our problem?

Are they vetoing Stem Cell research and attacking New York in planes amongst many other things? Yes they are. We do not agree with that. We have many issues with religion. There are many of them. What do we do?

Being a person of Reason should be enough. Logic and Rhetoric equip me to do great things. Atheists, Agnostics and rational people everywhere should be excelling in all fields?

What?

robindch · 23-12-2006 6:10pm

> Atheists, Agnostics and rational people everywhere should be excelling in all fields?

When you check it out, yes, it seems that's what happens. For example, here's a well-known survey of scientists in the USA:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Within the USA's National Academy of Sciences, I believe the figures are currently around 85% atheist. At The Edge, the smartest group of intellectuals I'm aware of, I don't believe that there are any religious people at all.

joe_chicken · 23-12-2006 7:03pm

DaveMcG wrote:

So science can explain everything in the universe -- except life?

No - the point I was making (although not that clear) was that it's the 1% that can make all the difference in life(i.e. we're 1% genetically different from apes...not exactly... but hopefully you get my point)

Apart from that, I don't think we know anythinig near 99% of everything.

I think that's the big difference between what we believe in.

Rev Hellfire · 24-12-2006 10:00am

robindch wrote:

> Atheists, Agnostics and rational people everywhere should be excelling in all fields?

When you check it out, yes, it seems that's what happens. For example, here's a well-known survey of scientists in the USA:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Within the USA's National Academy of Sciences, I believe the figures are currently around 85% atheist. At The Edge, the smartest group of intellectuals I'm aware of, I don't believe that there are any religious people at all.

Well as they say there's lies, damn lies and statistics

For example of the study you showed there was a return rate of 50% and the study was conducted via post ( not exactly ideal ). Added to which it appears that as of 1998 scientists can long longer do percentages correctly (try totalling the believe in immortality for 1998 J ).

A common statistic given in opposition to is one conduced by Elaine Howard Ecklund
http://www.explore.rice.edu/explore/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=7680&SnID=2
Although rice university does have a religious connection, which in my mind makes it as reliable as the one above.

Additionally the university of Chicago also conducted research on the beliefs of doctors and concluded that 76 percent have a religious belief.
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml

Certainly I would personally agree that among a population of highly educated individuals there will be a much lower belief in the biblical notion of god, but that’s not to say that belief in a god is removed. It can simply have evolved to reflect the greater level of knowledge.

This idea of the intellectual snobbery of certain atheists was indeed one of the corner stones of the programme. We'd all be athiests if only we where educated enough. Praise science.

Matamoros · 24-12-2006 12:51pm

To Rev Hellfire, my post may be construed as asserting that religious people may be less well educated. That was not my point. What I wanted to say was that, for people who do not believe in any outside force in their lives e.g. Gods, luck, destiny etc.. Shouldn't Reason be enough for them? For me, I have been angry with the Catholic Church since I was a kid. I don't know why. So, I have been trying to move on from that and I am hovering around the idea of accepting life in it's raw nature. Seeing it like it is, so to speak. In this way, I feel that I may make some progress.

Also thanks to Robin.

Dave! · 02-01-2007 11:31pm

You can watch the documentary here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,442,The-Trouble-with-Atheism,Rod-Liddle-Channel-4

joe_chicken wrote:

No - the point I was making (although not that clear) was that it's the 1% that can make all the difference in life(i.e. we're 1% genetically different from apes...not exactly... but hopefully you get my point)

Apart from that, I don't think we know anythinig near 99% of everything.

I think that's the big difference between what we believe in.

This is getting tiresome buddy... Just read my previous posts.

jimbling · 03-01-2007 4:38pm

joe_chicken wrote:

.......

firstly... wow.. that was a tough read.

secondly, joe, I really think you should re-read the entire thread. I normally don't post here, but while reading this I just couldn't believe some of your arguments..... your complete lack of understanding where all these EXTREMELY PATIENT posters are coming from, and your inability to form logical thoughts. If you came here to learn something I wouldn't be saying these things, but that was obviously not really the case.

The first point is that you completely changed your argument as you saw fit. I'm not going to give examples, but your threads are riddled with it. Secondly, you don't seem to have any understanding of how simple Atheism is.
Rule1: An Atheist Does not believe in any form of a God (deity).
QED.

It has nothing to do with weather religions are needed for morals, or the involvement/impact of religion in the creation of current day society's etc etc
So when you have the entire forum argue a point against you that does not directly relate "their belief" as you put it, then you should really start thinking they might be onto something. The fact is, the majority of people arguing against you are intelligent, reasoning and logical humans..... listen to what they have to say.

Everyone else has put forward arguments that are far better portrayed than mine. I am neither as learned or as articulate as the majority on this forum, but I want to make comments on a few things.

The main one is this belief that people have some sort of choice when it comes to religion, come on.... you can't really believe that. Every person in this world is born an Atheist*. <- think about that.
They are then thought by there environment to want/need a God. How strong that God becomes in the persons life is dependent on the society they live in, the environment of there schooling and home life etc.
When exactly do they choose? When do they have the intelligence and reasoning to make this choice?
Sometime in there late teens I guess is the answer. And the fact that so many are nowadays rejecting the Religious system in spite of the years of brainwashing they have endured should tell you enough.

And as stated already, numerous times, Religion was nothing but a tool
1)
used to portray a grouping of morals that were already in existence. It did not create the morals. I think this is one of the biggest problems I have when arguing with religious fanatics (not at all saying you are one, but they argue this point a lot). This assumption that we would all be going around raping and pillaging our neighbours if religion was completely eradicated. Absolute insanity.
2)It was also a Control mechanism. It was an easy way to put the "fear of God" into naive people - if you didn't obey those morals you went to hell etc etc.
It was an attempt to get control and obedience out of the masses and it worked quite well. In my opinion, that is why it grew to what it is today.

3)It was also the method for answering questions that were yet unknown. It's how the Sun, Moon, etc etc were all explained. The less and less of these questions that need answering the less and less religion is needed to answer them <- its still been used for a few though

* I would also like to come back to this on this argument that people "need" religion. This idea that it solves problems for us. Helps us deal with day to day problems as well as tragedy's etc.... What a farce. Not saying it doesn't do these things, but it is just a lie people want to live in. If religion didn't exist it could be replaced by a large number of things - Therapy is one that's used a lot nowadays- although it's not free

Awareness and enlightenment would probably be your best bet though.

I think the biggest argument for religion is humans undying love with our own importance. We, as a species, just can't seem to come to terms with the fact that we may not be quite as important as we thought. Losing this idea of an afterlife, or re-incarnation etc is just too difficult for most people to handle. You mean this life of 80years is all I get????? I've nothing to look forward too on my deathbed?? Be happy with the life I have had?? crazy talk. Obviously I will life for eternity... be it heaven, hell or purgatory
- oh no, wait... limbo's been scraped isn't it?? classic.

okay.... rant over for now.
I was going to continue on this point, but need to go to a meeting and couldn't be arsed leaving it till afterwards.

PS: All of the above are under the assumption we are not arguing about the existence of a GOD, but the benefits in believing in one.

anti-venom · 11-01-2007 11:23pm

I'm sick to death of the religious commnuity telling us they have the monopoly on morals. Of course morals existed before religion; it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Humans are social animals and to live together peacefully we need standards or morals. It's intrinsic, fundamental and vital to our survival. We each rely on the other person upholding their end of the reciprochal bargain ( be it explicit or implicit ) of goodwill and mutual assistance, ie we need to take care of each other to survive. Any moral code is based on this premise and without it we would never have left the caves.

Religion has co opted this basic survival tool and turned in on it's head. Morality, or thoughts or behaviours approximating morality, developed with our consciousness, not because of it.

The Trouble with Atheism

Comments