Reason for atheism no. 4,123,456

stevejazzx

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/world/africa/20nigeria.html?ref=world

'Christians and Muslims are slaughtering one another again in northern Nigeria where ritualistic traditions accentuates general religious ignorance.
Police are blaming a bizarre group who are insisting on imposing Islamic law.
Up to 1000 died in 2009 and CNN estimated that up to 300 have died the year before.'


How anyone can argue that religion is a source for good is beyond me. I mean how un-Christian and un-Muslim exactly do things have to get before people realize that modern religion is making up the rules as it goes; rewriting the guidebook whilst ignoring any moderate legacy.
Above is just one of hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of religion directly causing violence; enough is enough.

robindch

stevejazzx wrote: »

How anyone can argue that religion is a source for good is beyond me.

In the absence of religious people to explain this, I'd say that nobody fulfilling god's law can do wrong. Ergo, everything which is the result of religion is, by definition, The Right Thing.

In this case, we clearly have two gods at each other.

In the end, I'm sure one will prove more omnipotent than the other.

Mediocrity

robindch wrote: »

In the absence of religious people to explain this, I'd say that nobody fulfilling god's law can do wrong.

The Catholic Church does not teach this.

robindch

Mediocrity wrote: »

robindch wrote:

In the absence of religious people to explain this, I'd say that nobody fulfilling god's law can do wrong.

The Catholic Church does not teach this.

Are you saying that the Vatican claims that people who are carrying out god's will are wrong?

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

In the absence of religious people to explain this, I'd say that nobody fulfilling god's law can do wrong. Ergo, everything which is the result of religion is, by definition, The Right Thing.

In this case, we clearly have two gods at each other.

In the end, I'm sure one will prove more omnipotent than the other.

Maybe Allah will suicide-bomb God who will in turn steadfastly refuse to do anything to defend himself. Because sins or something. I hear letting yourself die in easily-avoidable circumstances gets rid of them. Anyway, that'd be two more of the critters taken care of. Just need to get Vishnu and co. sorted then.

ChocolateSauce

The discussion so far brings to mind the phrase "Mine is bigger than yours".

Turtwig

The Giants of Jotunheim have stolen Thor's Hammer and you all let them!!
Mighty Gods, may you soon get Thor's Hammer back and scourge this world of the evil that the Giants have forsaken it with!

Goduznt Xzst

Yeah... but it's happening in Africa, nobody cares about what happens in Africa.

stevejazzx

robindch wrote: »

In the absence of religious people to explain this, I'd say that nobody fulfilling god's law can do wrong. Ergo, everything which is the result of religion is, by definition, The Right Thing.

In this case, we clearly have two gods at each other.

In the end, I'm sure one will prove more omnipotent than the other.

Hmm. We get into the circular reasoning aspect of the religious mind here; everything fullfilling God's will is right even it is contradicts God's other laws. We have to re-interpret those other laws then and decide which ones 'mean what they mean' and which ones are 'flexible'. Funny, I never got a lot of flexibility from the command 'thou shall not kill' but it appears to be the one that religious organsiations take the lightest.

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yeah... but it's happening in Africa, nobody cares about what happens in Africa.

The difference is it's happening because of religion.

If it was happening because of, for example, age-old tribal disputes then of course we wouldn't care.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Dades wrote: »

The difference is it's happening because of religion.

If it was happening because of, for example, age-old tribal disputes then of course we wouldn't care.

I'm not entirely convinced. Perhaps its like Northern Ireland where it was really an ethnic clash but because the ethnicities weren't all that different you needed a religious tag to tell the difference.

Saint Ruth

robindch wrote: »

Are you saying that the Vatican claims that people who are carrying out god's will are wrong?

I have never heard it claim anything of the sort.

People who do wrong in God's name are still doing wron...

Saint Ruth

stevejazzx wrote: »

How anyone can argue that religion is a source for good is beyond me.
...
Above is just one of hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of religion directly causing violence; enough is enough.

That is like pointing out Stalin's crimes and condemning all atheists and then stating:

"Above is just one of hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of atheism directly causing violence; enough is enough".

Now, I don't think I've to explain the fallacy of that statement to the people here, do I?

ChocolateSauce

Saint Ruth wrote: »

I
People who do wrong in God's name are still doing wron...

They don't believe that though.

Saint Ruth

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

They don't believe that though.

Indeed they don't.

But the Catholic Church (robindch mentioned the Vatican) teaches Absolute Morality, not Relative Morality.
If something is wrong, then it's wrong.
It doesn't matter what the person thinks.
A bit like the law.
Ignorance is no excuse for drink driving...

herbiemcc

Saint Ruth, Stalin didn't operate "in the name of" atheism. I think it's fair to say that violence that is very often carried out for a 'higher cause' - is almost always claimed to have support from a god or a religion of some sort.

One might say that this is just the abuse of religion for personal gain which is probably true but when has an atheist ever persuaded people to kill etc with no reward in the afterlife.

Religion is a great tool to get uneducated people to do what you want. The more crazy the idea the more fervent and pure the 'faith' must be.

robindch

Saint Ruth wrote: »

People who do wrong in God's name are still doing wron...

That wasn't the point.

What I did ask is whether people who are doing "god's will" can ever be wrong?

Saint Ruth wrote:

If something is wrong, then it's wrong. It doesn't matter what the person thinks.

Could you give a few example of things which humans can do which are always wrong, regardless of circumstance?

pH

Saint Ruth wrote: »

That is like pointing out Stalin's crimes and condemning all atheists and then stating:

"Above is just one of hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of atheism directly causing violence; enough is enough".

Now, I don't think I've to explain the fallacy of that statement to the people here, do I?

I guess you're going to have to - the OP specifically addresses the claim that "religion is a source for good".

This claim is made repeatedly by believers and apologists.

Atheism on the other had isn't really anything, it's the vacuum left when people stop believing in intervening Gods (or never believe in them in the first place). I certainly am happy to admit that being an atheist makes you neither good nor bad, If you told me a serial killer or mass murderer was an atheist I wouldn't be surprised at all.

herbiemcc wrote:

Saint Ruth, Stalin didn't operate "in the name of" atheism.

Does this matter? If a group with an atheist agenda started fire-bombing churches and assassinating bishops "in the name of atheism" would that make any difference to your atheism?

Dades

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'm not entirely convinced. Perhaps its like Northern Ireland where it was really an ethnic clash but because the ethnicities weren't all that different you needed a religious tag to tell the difference.

That's a possibility, I guess.

Though the differences between Christianity and Muslim are far more pronounced. Many Catholics/Protestants would have a hard time detailing their doctrinal differences.

herbiemcc

I think at the stage where somebody takes up a bombing campaign then it wouldn't be atheism. I'm not trying to be pedantic but it would become anti-theism. Or anti-theist.

Atheism is a non belief in something - it is neither for or against religion.

It is really only the religious who try to impose their beliefs on everybody they can as a result of instructions written in a book they own.

Even the 'Horsemen' aren't really trying to promote any dogma (apart from books £££) other than clear thinking.

Saint Ruth

herbiemcc wrote: »

Saint Ruth, Stalin didn't operate "in the name of" atheism. I think it's fair to say that violence that is very often carried out for a 'higher cause' - is almost always claimed to have support from a god or a religion of some sort.

And my point is that the higher cause does not have to be religious.
It can be Communism or anything in fact.

You don't thinkthat Religion has a monoploy on "higher causes", do you?

herbiemcc wrote: »

One might say that this is just the abuse of religion for personal gain which is probably true but when has an atheist ever persuaded people to kill etc with no reward in the afterlife.

Stalin and Pol Pot had no problem persuading people to kill, not for personal gain, or for reward, but for the Greater Good, for the Socialist Workers Utopia.
But I'm not sure what you mean.

I'd like to meet the atheist who's presuaded peopleto kill with a promise of reward in the afterlife!

herbiemcc wrote: »

Religion is a great tool to get uneducated people to do what you want. The more crazy the idea the more fervent and pure the 'faith' must be.

As can all beliefs.

Every belief can be perverted.

Saint Ruth

robindch wrote: »

That wasn't the point.

What I did ask is whether people who are doing "god's will" can ever be wrong?

It rather depends on whether they are doing "god's will" or are just using "god's will" as an excuse to do what they'd do anyway.

The Vatican doesn't excuse all acts just because some chap say it's "god's will"...

robindch wrote: »

Could you give a few example of things which humans can do which are always wrong, regardless of circumstance?

Murder (not manslaughter or sef-defence), rape, torturing animals, slapping your girlfriend around, malicious gossip...etc...

I presume Atheists, Agnostics, Jew, Christian, and Miscellaneous would agree with that...

Saint Ruth

pH wrote: »

I guess you're going to have to - the OP specifically addresses the claim that "religion is a source for good".

This claim is made repeatedly by believers and apologists.

Atheism on the other had isn't really anything, it's the vacuum left when people stop believing in intervening Gods (or never believe in them in the first place). I certainly am happy to admit that being an atheist makes you neither good nor bad, If you told me a serial killer or mass murderer was an atheist I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Yes, I see what you mean.

robindch

Saint Ruth wrote: »

It rather depends on whether they are doing "god's will" or are just using "god's will" as an excuse to do what they'd do anyway. The Vatican doesn't excuse all acts just because some chap say it's "god's will"...

Again, I'm not talking about people who think they're doing god's will, but people who ARE doing god's will -- can they ever be wrong?

Saint Ruth wrote: »

robindch wrote:

Could you give a few example of things which humans can do which are always wrong, regardless of circumstance?

Murder (not manslaughter or sef-defence), rape, torturing animals, slapping your girlfriend around, malicious gossip...etc...
I presume Atheists, Agnostics, Jew, Christian, and Miscellaneous would agree with that...

I'd imagine that we all agree that these are awful things, but I don't know of any irreligious people who think that they're wrong in all circumstances, which was the question (and that's what's meant by "absolutely morality", isn't it?)

So, say you're in a hijacked jumbo jet and a hijacker tells you to give a good sound slap to your your girlfriend in the seat next to you, or he'll blow up the plane, killing all 400 people on board. Assume that you just have two options -- comply or not comply. Using your absolute morality, you've no option but to refuse to do it and cause (albeit indirectly) the deaths of 400 people.

Do you feel that "absolute morality" is useful, or should you abandon it and save 400 people?

stevejazzx

Saint Ruth wrote: »

That is like pointing out Stalin's crimes and condemning all atheists and then stating:

"Above is just one of hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of atheism directly causing violence; enough is enough".

Now, I don't think I've to explain the fallacy of that statement to the people here, do I?

Not exactly. Our poor African friends who are mortally wounding one another over some alleged Sky gods don't quite compare to a dynasty of dictatorial rule, no matter how much you twist and bend it.
In the link I posted it is the religious brainwashing that has preceded both these primitive peoples that has resulted in the extremism. This has happened to such an extent that it is fair to say that religious ideology is directly responsible for the current outcome.
Stalin killed people irrespective of atheistic indifference; he killed Atheists, Christians, Jews - whoever. It mattered very little to his overall ideology and never impacted on his frame of reference.
Where religions kill their frame of reference is all that matters and their ideology is directly responsible for their actions. The attempt to blend atheist dictators with religious leaders is disingenuous much the same as it is when people claim that atheism is as dogmatic as a religion or indeed, is a religion.
Religion is another reason for us to kill one another, atheism isn't; unless you want to claim that religious people would be compelled to kill atheists, in which case you've just agreed with me.

herbiemcc

Saint Ruth - I don't see how the two really equate.

On one hand you accept that religions had violence committed in their name.

Then you seem to say in effect that so what, atheists have done that too so they cancel each other out.

I don't follow this. Religious people have committed crimes but where they differ from atheists is having this 'higher cause' not of this earth which can be used powerfully to justify absolutely anything.

Atheists don't have this. Of course someone can commit awful crime and they may happen not to have a faith in the supernatural but that can't therefore be a tick in the religion is good/true column. It just isn't comparing like with like.

MrPudding

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Murder (not manslaughter or sef-defence), rape, torturing animals, slapping your girlfriend around, malicious gossip...etc...

What if there was a war and you were a guard and you were guarding a female prisoner of war. Imagine you were ordered to rape and kill her. Now obviously you would not want to do it. But what if you would be killed if you refused? And what if you knew that if you did not do it, because you were killed for not doing it, your nastly colleague would do it. Now, you know that if you did it you would be as kind and gentle as you could, given the circumstances, and would do the whole horrible thing a quickly and humanely as possible. You also know that your colleague would take great pleasure is is making it as painful and drawn out as possible.

So, in short, would it not be better to rape and kill someone to save your own life, particularly when you know that you would rape and kill the person in a considerably less cruel way?

MrP

iUseVi

MrPudding wrote: »

So, in short, would it not be better to rape and kill someone to save your own life, particularly when you know that you would rape and kill the person in a considerably less cruel way?
MrP

No. I hope you are not serious. I would prefer to die (fighting) than to rape someone.

Sam Vimes

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Murder (not manslaughter or sef-defence)

It's funny how the first thing on your list of things that are "always wrong" is a particular method of doing that involves a particular state of mind and you immediately followed it with two exceptions that mitigate the "wrongness" of the action. There is no action that is in itself in inherently wrong, what makes it right or wrong is the reason why the action was carried out. that's why there's a distinction made between murder and self-defence. The closest you'll ever get to an action that's "always wrong" is one where there is no conceivable reason or justification for doing the action, if the only possible motivation is your own selfish gain at someone else's expense

MrPudding

iUseVi wrote: »

No. I hope you are not serious. I would prefer to die (fighting) than to rape someone.

Of course, I am sure most people would like to hope they would do that, in real life.

The point of this “thought experiment,“ is that you have to choose between carrying out a horrific act yourself, or allowing yourself to be killed knowing that when you are killed the victim will suffer considerably more than if you carried out the act.

So whilst you fighting and getting killed, effectively suicide by cop, would allow you to die with a clear conscience, you would be condemning the poor woman to a vicious and prolonged violent and sexual assault, suffering considerably more than she would have done at your hands, but as long as you die with a clear conscience I suppose that is OK.

So, is it morally correct to carry out an immoral act to prevent a more immoral act? Personally, I find it to be an interesting question.



MrP

iUseVi

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course, I am sure most people would like to hope they would do that, in real life.

The point of this “thought experiment,“ is that you have to choose between carrying out a horrific act yourself, or allowing yourself to be killed knowing that when you are killed the victim will suffer considerably more than if you carried out the act.

So whilst you fighting and getting killed, effectively suicide by cop, would allow you to die with a clear conscience, you would be condemning the poor woman to a vicious and prolonged violent and sexual assault, suffering considerably more than she would have done at your hands, but as long as you die with a clear conscience I suppose that is OK.

So, is it morally correct to carry out an immoral act to prevent a more immoral act? Personally, I find it to be an interesting question.

Alright I'll give you that, it is an interesting thought experiment.

Obviously I would prefer an outcome where I fight my way out and save the girl. But if in this hypothetical scenario that is not possible and I somehow know it is not possible...I dunno. I still want to think there is a third option.

This kind of reminds me of Kant's trolley problem. At the end of the day the chances of me being in such a bad situation are slim, and how I would want to act is not necessary how I would act.

Goduznt Xzst

MrPudding wrote: »

So, in short, would it not be better to rape and kill someone to save your own life, particularly when you know that you would rape and kill the person in a considerably less cruel way?

Has this woman been raped and killed previously? I'm assuming she hasn't :rolleyes: Then how exactly does she have a perspective on how much cruelty you are saving her.

Thus, however gently you attempt to rape and kill her, from her perspective this would be the cruelest experience of rape and death that she will ever experience.

Would I do it? I can't say, various other factors would come into it, such as my age, her age... etc.

Then again, if I was given a button and told that by pressing it somebody else would commit the act and I would live, well, I may have an easier conscience with that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiFKm6l5-vE

MrPudding

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Has this woman been raped and killed previously? I'm assuming she hasn't :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: right back at you. I would expect that she has not been killed before, but not sure about the rape.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Then how exactly does she have a perspective on how much cruelty you are saving her.

I would expect she does not. And why would she have to? Her perspective is not really relevant to this.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Thus, however gently you attempt to rape and kill her, from her perspective this would be the cruelest experience of rape and death that she will ever experience.

Yes, assuming she has never been raped and killed before, no matter how gently you did it, it would, undoubtedly be the worst experience of her life. But you know, because of the knowledge you have of your colleague, that it could be much much worse.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Would I do it? I can't say, various other factors would come into it, such as my age, her age... etc.

I think perhaps you are trying to over think it. The point is that it is conceivable that the raping and murdering of a person is potentially the most humane thing to do.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Then again, if I was given a button and told that by pressing it somebody else would commit the act and I would live, well, I may have an easier conscience with that.

This seems to be the kind of feeling that a lot of people have about this question. It is more about the person living with themselves rather than saving the woman from pain and suffering. She will be raped and murdered whether you do it or not. Why should two people die when only one has to? And then why should the person that has to die suffer more than necessary?

I am sure some of the regulars will recognise the thought experiment from “The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten.”

MrP

kelly1

stevejazzx wrote: »

How anyone can argue that religion is a source for good is beyond me.

Seriously??? You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that huge numbers of genuine Christians help their fellow man precisely because they believe it to be God's will. Mother Teresa, Trocaire etc...

Turtwig

kelly1 wrote: »

Seriously??? You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that huge numbers of genuine Christians help their fellow man precisely because they believe it to be God's will. Mother Teresa, Trocaire etc...

That good comes from them, not from God's will (which is about incoherent a concept as things come). Religion can be used to logically lead good people to do evil things. No other ideology I know of has that power. Those suicide hijackers of 911, they thought they were doing good. In fact, they were convinced by it.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Seriously??? You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that huge numbers of genuine Christians help their fellow man precisely because they believe it to be God's will. Mother Teresa, Trocaire etc...

Two things to note:

1. Few religious people appear to be helping others simply out of humanitarian desire. Many are doing it, at least in part, to help to spread their religion.

2. If her letters are to be believed, Mother Teresa seems to been functionally pretty much an atheist.

kelly1

Malty_T wrote: »

That good comes from them, not from God's will (which is about incoherent as things come). Religion can be use to logically lead good people to do evil things. No other ideology I know of has that power. Those suicide hijackers of 911, they thought they were doing good. In fact, they were convinced by it.

We all know that people justify violence in God's name but I would argue that that comes from corruption of religion or false religion. True religion says "Do unto others as you would have done to you", "Love thy neighbour" etc. The two view of "religion" are polar opposites. So really it's silly to label all religion as being the cause of evil.

Turtwig

kelly1 wrote: »

We all know that people justify violence in God's name but I would argue that that comes from corruption of religion or false religion. True religion says "Do unto others as you would have done to you", "Love thy neighbour" etc. The two view of "religion" are polar opposites. So really it's silly to label all religion as being the cause of evil.

Nobody has labelled religion as the cause of evil. What we have said, is that religion isn't a source of good.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Two things to note:

1. Few religious people appear to be helping others simply out of humanitarian desire. Many are doing it, at least in part, to help to spread their religion.

So you suppose or want to believe.

robindch wrote: »

2. If her letters are to be believed, Mother Teresa seems to been functionally pretty much an atheist.

Mother Teresa was no atheist. If your read about the lives of the saints, it's not unusual for God to withdraw spiritual consolation from the soul in order to bring about a greater good such as the conversion of atheists. In Christian doctrine, the suffering of a good Christian makes it possible for God to grant graces to sinners because the sufferer has done penance on behalf of the sinner.

kelly1

Malty_T wrote: »

Nobody has labelled religion as the cause of evil. What we have said, is that religion isn't a source of good.

Did you not read the OP?

"Above is just one of hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of religion directly causing violence"

drkpower

kelly1 wrote: »

If your read about the lives of the saints, it's not unusual for God to withdraw spiritual consolation from the soul in order to bring about a greater good such as the conversion of atheists.

You would think he would just put spiritual consolation into all of our souls; then we would be grand.

He's a queer fella for sure.

kelly1

drkpower wrote: »

You would think he would just put spiritual consolation into all of our souls; then we would be grand.

God reveals his presence to those who are humble and have faith.

drkpower

kelly1 wrote: »

God reveals his presence to those who are humble and have faith.

Is he very insecure?
Why do you have to believe in him before he does anything?
Strange fella.

toiletduck

kelly1 wrote: »

Malty_T wrote:

Nobody has labelled religion as the cause of evil. What we have said, is that religion isn't a source of good.

Did you not read the OP?

"Above is just one of hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of religion directly causing violence"

The part in bold is what I think you're not getting.

*sigh* Just saw a Panorama on the goings on in East Jerusalem. Depressing stuff.

kelly1

drkpower wrote: »

Is he very insecure?
Why do you have to believe in him before he does anything?
Strange fella.

God only does things for our own God and so the need for faith brings a greater good than direct knowledge of God. The demonstration of faith allows God to reward us in heaven. If we had no need of faith, there would be no basis for a reward.

drkpower

kelly1 wrote: »

God only does things for our own God and so the need for faith brings a greater good than direct knowledge of God. The demonstration of faith allows God to reward us in heaven. If we had no need of faith, there would be no basis for a reward.

Why reward us for something he gives us?
Wierdo.

kelly1

toiletduck wrote: »

The part in bold is what I think you're not getting.

*sigh* Just saw a Panorama on the goings on in East Jerusalem. Depressing stuff.

OK, fine, big deal. Are you getting my point that true religion can be a force for good?

drkpower

kelly1 wrote: »

OK, fine, big deal. Are you getting my point that true religion can be a force for good?

Believing in Santa can be a force for good; where does that get us?

kelly1

drkpower wrote: »

Why reward us for something he gives us?
Wierdo.

You misunderstand.

It is our response to God's call for faith that merits a reward. If we demonstrate faith, we will be rewarded. Get it?

drkpower

kelly1 wrote: »

You misunderstand.

It is our response to God's call for faith that merits a reward. If we demonstrate faith, we will be rewarded. Get it?

Nope. He rewards us for demonstrating something that only he can give us. And he damns us for not demonstrating something that only he can give us.
Bixarre.

kelly1

drkpower wrote: »

Believing in Santa can be a force for good; where does that get us?

I'm not sure that it is a force for good. Children are basically being told a lie albeit with the intention of making them happy. When the do find out the truth I just causes disappointment and I think could lead to some cynicism.

Actually I've noticed there's a link between children finding out that Santa doesn't exist and the abandonment of belief in God.