Does atheism scare you?

Laika · Mar 29, 2021

SA Huguenot said:
Th

This should be told by 25 million Christians who were killed off by Stalin.
Im sure they will rest in peace then.
And the countless Christians who were tortured for having Bibles.

Using the Black Book of Communism (1997), the estimates for deaths in the Soviet Union are around 20 million people, including those before and after Stalin's period of rule from 1929 to 1953. The book itself puts the total estimate of deaths from communism around 94 million people and is responsible for publicising the "communism killed 100 million people" figure.

The majority of Soviet victims would have been famine victims; the black books suggests about 5 million from the 1921 Russian Famine and 6 million from famine of 1932-1933. The figures vary wildly depending on the methods used to infer death tolls, and there is a huge debate amongst historians on what the numbers were.

Unless you are assuming that all of the victims in the Soviet Union were Christian (which is unlikely given the significant Muslim and Jewish minority groups in the country), the Soviets couldn't have been responsible for 25 million deaths based on the persecution of Christians alone.

However, there is an estimate of at least 106,300 Russian clergymen being executed during the Great Purge (1936-1938). Religious persecution was only one aspect of Communism's atrocities and wasn't the whole story.

ChristineM · Mar 29, 2021

SA Huguenot said:
I assume you are throwing all religions into a pot, and mixing it up under the recipy of Religion.
I would rather you call these religions by name rather than a generalisation to place the Atheist religion asside from the rest.
Well, lets look at these Religious wars.
First we had the Romans who killed all that believed in the salvation of Jesus,
then we had the Muslims maurodering over the middle east and eastern Europe killing everyone who believed in the salvation of Jesus,
then we had the governments of Europe calling on the populace to enguage in "Holy wars" against the Muslims who killed everyone who believed in the salvation of Jesus.
then we had the countries in Eastern europe fighting off the Muslims who killed off anyone who believed in the salvation of Jesus.
Then we had the Roman Catholic church overrun by the inqusition killing off anyone who believed in the salvation of Jesus.
Then we had the Catholics under the pope fighting the protestants who believed in Jesus' salvation.
Then we had the communists who still hate the christians who believe in the salvation of Jesus.
now we have the atheists who hates the people who believes in the salvation of Jesus.
It seems as if history teaches us something about the believers of Jesus, and those who hates tthem.

And I was an atheist some time ago., but now I am a Bible believing Christian, and I cant believe that you would deny Stalin's atheism! What about all the Bolshevic Communists who were atheist, but were Jewish first. And if you are attempting to tell me that Stalin followed the Bible, I will show you the alien ship in my workshop.
The constitution of the USSR was one of atheism. and total hatred for Christians.

nice spin indeed.
I winder why they killed off so many christians.
perhaps their Nationalism was ruled by their atheism.

I never ranted any hatefull words.
All I did was to show you what hatred the Atheist has against someone who believes in the salvation of Jesus.
You should hear the hatfull rants of the New atheists, (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett)
They dont give a damn to insult me, my intellect, or my religion.
They would speak against "religions" as if Islamic fundamentalists are the exact same as Christians.
They will generalise in an attemppt to discredit the Bible, and so on.
If I were to speak only a fraction of what Dawkins do, I will be branded as a hatefull maniac.
Yet the Atheists think they are these great intellectual kings who can say whatever they want, and anyone who dissaggrees are made out as foolish fairytale believers.
Have you ever for one moment sat and think about what an atheist realy are?
Do you agree with how they attack a person such as I?

Does which religious beliefs you hold make a difference to how many you kill in the name of god?

But if you want a list... Here are a few i put together

Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Algeria, 1992-
Baha'is, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Croatia, 1991-92
English Civil War, 1642-46
Holocaust, 1938-45
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Lebanon 1860 / 1975-92
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Russian pogroms 1905-06 / 1917-22
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
Thirty Years War, 1618-48 - 11,500,000
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857
Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Crusades, 1095-1291
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s

You misrepresent Rome, they killed those who opposed the religious freedom of roman culture and those who denied the emperor bas god.

Ehm, who was it who sent armies across to kill those muslims.. oh it was christians.

And the rest of your list, kind of odd that those who believed in JC are the ones you say we're against JC.

An i can't believe you would deny stalin his faith. And again you misrepresent, pro rata the soviet state killed more atheists than religious . And again, misrepresentation, the majority of those killed broke the laws of the state by such things as opposing the state and gathering in groups greater than 6 persons.

I wonder why they killed so many atheist...? You seem to miss that bit entirely.

Ah come one, your disparaging of atheist would cause ructions of i said similar against christianity.

Considering you are saying an awful lot against atheist I think the last part of your rant rather hypocritical. But hey, you are a christian so you cam say whatever you want

HonestJoe · Mar 29, 2021

mikkel_the_dane said:
That is not a fact of a life. It is the replication of the fittest gene, not the strongest.

It's really more complex than even that but I wanted to keep it simple since that didn't matter in the context it was being used in anyway. They key point is that it is just a fact of life and not some kind of rule anyone consciously choses to follow.

Thief · Mar 29, 2021

now we are on to it......swordplay
lots of it

and it is written.....From His mouth proceeds a double edged sword

and what do I know of swordplay?
a double edged sword cuts both ways
the foreswing and the backswing.....sever the living from the dead

and is there really any difference?
they who believe in God and fail to follow
and they who deny there is a God.....and fail to follow

ChristineM · Mar 29, 2021

SA Huguenot said:
Do you see what you do?
You are using Islamic terrorism to taint a belief in Jesus as God!
Why do you reserve the right to generalise like this, and to say that christian believers plant bombs?
Dont you think this is highly deceptive?
But when I say Stalin was an atheist, I am repremanded that he was not?
and where did a Believer in Jesus Christ rape someone? If this is true, are you now saying that this is the Christian moral standard?
And where did Christians bash Gays?
Such behaviour is not Christian. For I have more sins than any gay person, and it is not for me to judge, for God will judge me the way I do to any other person.

No, i im using christian bombing in the UK to highlight that christianity terror groups aint so much different than any other terror group.

Christian terrorism - Wikipedia

Of course you can deny christian terrorism exists, all that does is show an ignorance of christianity

I have no god to lie for so i no need to lie about being raped by a christian.

Examples of gay bashing

History of violence against LGBT people in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

A Vestigial Mote · Mar 29, 2021

ratiocinator said:
I see no evidence at all for objective morality. Even if it exists, I see no means at all to objectively access it, so even if it does exist it might as well not.

This is a good point, I feel - because it displays that even if there IS an objective morality, can anyone know what it is? Does anyone have the keys to the box? Someone may say it is their "God" - but that just sort of "passes the buck" and let's them claim subordination to someone else's ideas of what "objective morality" is, without actually doing any work to investigate or evidence the reasons that anything is objectively moral, and leaving no way for us to verifiably "check-in" with the one supposedly holding the keys.

Thief · Mar 29, 2021

and Peter was given the keys...

ratiocinator · Mar 29, 2021

SA Huguenot said:
Oh, realy!
I wonder what Darwins' book was called again....

On the Origin of Species.

Oh and there are more...

by Means of Natural Selection,

Oh and Much, Much more...

or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Goodness gracious, here we have it....
Even Darwin's book say it is the survival of the fittest.

None of that says anything about 'strongest' and the title you quote doesn't even mention 'fittest'. Saying 'strongest' is simply a misunderstanding of what "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection" means. It means that which best fits with the environment. It can and does lead to altruistic behaviour and empathy in social animals.

I also note that you ignored most of my post about looking at the facts rather than expressing your own prejudice and assumptions.

Brickjectivity · Mar 29, 2021

Nimos said:
Im not really sure, that I think its a bad argument as such, but it's not a smoking gun either by any means. I personally don't think there is any objective morality. But if I did, I would still think that it more likely to be caused by natural means rather than a God.

That is helpful to me for understanding what you mean, thanks. I'd break that point up, because to me God is theological, but 'Cause' is Creationist. These aren't always related. A theist may not believe in 'Cause' but may believe in God. This is more common on the Hindu side of the ocean, but it happens here plenty, too. Also I think atheism is non threatening, but I think it is nothing either. It doesn't do anything, but religion does things. Atheism is a new term coined in protest against pushy religionists. If religionists weren't pushing it wouldn't have been invented. Atheists have always been around under various names and always will be until such time I think that the religionists get our act together; so where is the threat? Everything is in the hands of religionists. If religionists can get things tuned right there won't be anyone seeking shelter under the word atheist. Maybe the occasional attention seeker or circus act will, but nobody else will bother. On the other hand if the secular culture can find a way to stabilize itself, it could replace religion. We could all forget what religion even is. That doesn't seem likely since secular culture is new and chaotic, and some people have a very bad experience with it. Some don't, but as long as some do its not going to oust religious culture.

Nimos said:
Im not 100% sure we are talking about the same thing here. By objective morality, one mean that something is considered wrong/evil despite humans being there or not.

Meaning for instance that the act of killing is always evil, even if humans weren't there. So I don't really think it is correct to say that you seek objective morality. But rather, if God is the one that have decided what is objectively moral right or wrong, and he say that killing homosexsuals for enjoying each others company is an evil act, then it is evil and there is no discussion about it.
It would be very difficult, if not impossible for me to "seek" the moral justification in that or to accept that as being objectively good, because I completely disagree with such statement.

So in a sense, I support evil, as anyone that would want to thrive towards doing what is objectively good, ought to follow what God say is good, if he is the one deciding objective morality. But you would never convince me that executing such commandment or what to call it, would be a good thing.

Wrong despite humans being gone? You have to pick a basis like 'Pain is wrong' or like 'Too much order or too little order is wrong', and only then can you decide if there is an objective morality in that context. If all pain is wrong, then there can be objective morality about that. If all disorder is wrong then there is objective morality about it. When you bring humans into it, then things get more complicated. If there is an ideal life for a human to live, then there is objective morality on that basis but not without some kind of basis.

TagliatelliMonster · Mar 29, 2021

SA Huguenot said:
Oh how nice for atheists to have such collective amnesia.
When atheism is unleashed on the populace, such as the Communist party's 1917 Russian revolution, or the Chinese Sedong communist government, or the Veitnam communist, or Pol Pot, of Fidel Castro, the East block etc. Millions of people will die!

All those people acted upon reprehensible ideologies. That they happened to be also atheists is no more relevant then some of them having mustaches.

Atheism is not an ideology.
I'm an atheist, but not a communist or fascist or racist.

Lots of attrocities have been motivated directly by religious beliefs, though. They still do, till this day. I don't have to give you examples. I'm 110% that you've thought of at least 2 by yourself by the end of this sentence. That's how common they are.

In atheism there is no place for theists, but hatred and extermination of any morality.

Atheists aren't the ones who believe "the others" deserve to spend eternity in torture chambers.

The projection is astounding.

And any person thinking that the human somehow posesses a moral standard, and no religion is needed to be the guideline for morality, that is a myth.

Then why are atheists so underrepresented in prison?

to the Atheist there is no reason on self moral compass, for why should there be?

That is not true at all.
I, as an atheist, have many reasons for a self, as well as collective btw, moral compass.

if we are mere animals, why think it is wrong to rape, murder, steal etc?

Not sure why you think being animals has anything to do with that. Does that mean you think it is okay to rape non-human animals?

Anyhow, because I care about the wellbeing of my fellow man and woman.

It is the nature of man to greed, lust, and to feed.

Actually, it is primarily in the nature of man to cooperate with strong social relationships.
Greed and standing and social status, is the result of primitive alpha male behavior. Which indeed is also in our nature.

The Moral law is the one which is in the concience of Man, and if he so desires to feed these vices, why should he have any guidelines not to do so?

Because the well-being of yourself and the society you live in is directly connected to the well-being of others. So harming them, directly/indirectly also harms you.

Who decides about this law?

It's not "law".
It's basic empathy and common sense.

Well, they could not get it right in 150 years, and they still dont.

O really?

Here's an honest question for you...

Say we can press the reset button on your "soul". You'll be born again as another human being. Which one is random. You could end up being anyone. Black, white, jew, muslim, hindu, christian, gay, a man, a woman, ... anyone. The only thing you get to choose, is a country and a time period where you'll be born.

So, which year and which country do you choose? Remember: you don't know who you'll be.

You might not want to end up being a jew in germany in 1942 for example.

I'm curious what you will answer.

And therefore, I am bound to the ultimate accountability.

I'm accountable to my fellow man in the here and now, not in some afterlife which is indistinguishable from imagination.

TagliatelliMonster · Mar 29, 2021

SA Huguenot said:
Yes, who decides on Morality?
What is the rules.
If any person from whatever denomination, from Atheism, to Islam, to Christian to Buddism, claims morality, ...
can we get their "Sources" utilised by them to establish how they perceive morality, and scrutinise it?
I think any claim on reality is subjected to scrutiny before acceptance.

Morality that relies on "sources", is not morality at all but just mere obedience to perceived authority.

Actual morality is reasoned and does not require an "authority" to hand it to us.
You have to actually be able to argue a proper reason when you make a moral judgement beyond "my god says so".

Say for example when someone asks you why murder is wrong... is your answer then really that 1 of the 10 commandments is "thou shall not kill"?

Can't you really provide a proper reasoned argument for why it's probably not a good idea to murder / allow murder?

If you really can't, then that would be rather psychopathic of you...

The fact is that it's perfectly possible to provide a reasonable argument for why murder is wrong, and at no point does it strengthen the argument to add "and god says it's bad". That has no moral weight whatsoever.

TagliatelliMonster · Mar 29, 2021

SA Huguenot said:
Now why would you claim that Atheists have some ingrained morality code.

Because every human that isn't a psychopath, has.
It's called empathy.

I speak of firsthand observation, that Atheists are fighting for abortions, Gay Rights, socialist equity where the Christian has no right to even critisize these practices.

Yes, yes, the "immoral/amoral" ones are fighting for individual rights / equal rights and freedom.

How horrible of them. You should round them up and strike them with His Holiness in the form of a blessed bullet to the brain. I'll bring the pitchforks, you bring to torches!

Nimos · Mar 29, 2021

Brickjectivity said:
That is helpful to me for understanding what you mean, thanks. I'd break that point up, because to me God is theological, but 'Cause' is Creationist. These aren't always related. A theist may not believe in 'Cause' but may believe in God. This is more common on the Hindu side of the ocean, but it happens here plenty, too. Also I think atheism is non threatening, but I think it is nothing either. It doesn't do anything, but religion does things. Atheism is a new term coined in protest against pushy religionists. If religionists weren't pushing it wouldn't have been invented. Atheists have always been around under various names and always will be until such time I think that the religionists get our act together; so where is the threat? Everything is in the hands of religionists. If religionists can get things tuned right there won't be anyone seeking shelter under the word atheist. Maybe the occasional attention seeker or circus act will, but nobody else will bother. On the other hand if the secular culture can find a way to stabilize itself, it could replace religion. We could all forget what religion even is. That doesn't seem likely since secular culture is new and chaotic, and some people have a very bad experience with it. Some don't, but as long as some do its not going to oust religious culture.

Not exactly sure what you mean, to be an atheist is just a name, like being a Christian, its just to avoid confusion, when we talk together. Some see themselves as agnostics and so forth, having to clarify it all the time is already difficult enough, and its not uncommon that you get the occasionally scratch from people, if you just write religious people, and then cite something which have nothing to do with what they believe.

I don't think you will ever see a secular culture in the same sense as a religious culture, but rather it will be one based on humanism, which probably wouldn't be any different than it is now, just natural evolving with the culture, as it have always been.

I have seen that there is a fight going with atheist vs religion when it comes to who killed the most

It's not really what my OP was about. But surely there have been countries which were atheists, that have killed a lot of people. But I think one have to be careful saying that atheism were the driving force behind it, or whether it was a standard power struggle. I personally doubt that Stalin care all that much about religion, but that he was very much aware that a big religious community could be dangerous for him, staying in power and getting rid of them under the excuse of atheism seem more likely to be the main motive, than him really spending a lot of time caring about these "big" questions.

Haven't looked into it, but that would be my initial guess, given that I haven't really heard a lot in general where Stalin express a lot of views or concerns about it, but could be interesting to look into, so will have to do that.

Brickjectivity said:
Wrong despite humans being gone? You have to pick a basis like 'Pain is wrong' or like 'Too much order or too little order is wrong', and only then can you decide if there is an objective morality in that context. If all pain is wrong, then there can be objective morality about that. If all disorder is wrong then there is objective morality about it. When you bring humans into it, then things get more complicated. If there is an ideal life for a human to live, then there is objective morality on that basis but not without some kind of basis.

That is what objective moral means.

Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. Some people may think of objective morality as commandments from God, while other people may think the universe has some objective rules we may follow.

So if these morals comes from God and one believes that, he is the one deciding them and they are not up for interpretation. So basically it doesn't matter whether we exist or not, it would be either right or wrong regardless.

Otherwise it is subjective morality:
Subjective morality says that our morals are all human-made, and can vary from person to person. While there are strong morals shared by most of humanity, such as killing, many morals are subjective as to whether or not they are correct.

That is what they mean, as I said (maybe to you or someone else, can't remember) I don't believe objective morality is true, I think all are subjective. Which is also why, I don't think that William Lane Craig argument is all that bad. But also see no reason to defend against it, as I don't believe objective morality exists, but a lot of atheist do. And obvious most religious people will probably argue that God is the authority here and support objective morality in one way or another. Also why I was interested in hearing if some religious people did not believe in objective morality, because that would be interesting to hear about.

9-10ths_Penguin · Mar 29, 2021

SA Huguenot said:
Yes, who decides on Morality?
What is the rules.
If any person from whatever denomination, from Atheism, to Islam, to Christian to Buddism, claims morality, ...
can we get their "Sources" utilised by them to establish how they perceive morality, and scrutinise it?
I think any claim on reality is subjected to scrutiny before acceptance.

Before asking what a person's sources of morality, it's important to back up a step and ask what we mean by the term "morality."

I agree with the idea (that I believe I first heard from Matt Dillahunty; I think he may have got it from Sam Harris) that morality is about the well-being of thinking beings.

IOW, if a question doesn't concern a thinking being's well-being, then it's not about morality. Things that, on the whole, serve well-being are moral; things that are, on the whole, detrimental to well-being are not.

Would you agree? If not, how are you defining morality?

Saint Frankenstein · Mar 29, 2021

Nimos said:
I have seen a lot of debate between atheism and religion, whether that is about the truth of it, morally and so forth.

However have noticed that in some of them, especially when it comes to the question of morality, that its not uncommon that an argument like "Without God there is no moral justification" or "without God nothing would prevent people from just doing whatever they want", just to clarify, I don't believe those people using these types of arguments (at least not the majority of them) make the claim that atheists can't be moral. But rather that this is an argument for the likelihood of God. Meant in such way, that atheists might claim that they don't believe in a God, but without one, there is no explanation or reason for objective morality, therefore God offers the best explanation, atheists just won't or are to ignorant to see the evidence. This post is not meant to be about morality, but rather how people view atheism.

So to those of you which are religious and believe in objective morality, would you be afraid of becoming an atheist, meaning that you fear you might lose some moral "control", or what to say?

If you for whatever reason, do not believe in objective morality as a religious person, I would also be very interested to hear, why that is the case?

(If you want a quick introduction to what Im talking about, this is a debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan, where William present the argument. Hopefully it should start the correct place at 22.45 and end roughly around 26.30 depending on how much you care to watch.)

The growth of it in the West concerns me, but more concerning to me is what people believe about humans having a soul and there being more to life than the physical world. That is a bigger difference between worldviews, imo.

Brickjectivity · Mar 29, 2021

Nimos said:
Not exactly sure what you mean, to be an atheist is just a name, like being a Christian, its just to avoid confusion, when we talk together. Some see themselves as agnostics and so forth, having to clarify it all the time is already difficult enough, and its not uncommon that you get the occasionally scratch from people, if you just write religious people, and then cite something which have nothing to do with what they believe.

I was mistaken. 'Agnostic' is the modern coined term. Atheism is just a transliteration from Greek 'Atheos'.

Nimos said:
I don't think you will ever see a secular culture in the same sense as a religious culture, but rather it will be one based on humanism, which probably wouldn't be any different than it is now, just natural evolving with the culture, as it have always been.

Mixed with religion, practically always.

Nimos said:
have seen that there is a fight going with atheist vs religion when it comes to who killed the most It's not really what my OP was about. But surely there have been countries which were atheists, that have killed a lot of people. But I think one have to be careful saying that atheism were the driving force behind it, or whether it was a standard power struggle. I personally doubt that Stalin care all that much about religion, but that he was very much aware that a big religious community could be dangerous for him, staying in power and getting rid of them under the excuse of atheism seem more likely to be the main motive, than him really spending a lot of time caring about these "big" questions.

Haven't looked into it, but that would be my initial guess, given that I haven't really heard a lot in general where Stalin express a lot of views or concerns about it, but could be interesting to look into, so will have to do that.

People have sleeping lions in them, such as a desire to murder. We have lots of sleeping lions. The trick is not to wake them up. There is a term we use to name someone (a soldier) who has killed or an animal (such as a housecat) that has made its first kill. We say their are 'Blooded'. It is an antonym of the term 'Virgin', but you don't have to actually kill to awaken murder. You only have to despise someone. Similarly you don't have to have sex to desire it. You only have to become curious about it. Then the desire awakes, and you know what you want. You don't need atheism or religion to become murderous, to awaken the beast. Sometimes it is difficult to put the lion back to sleep, whatever lion it is. The desire once awakened tries to remain vigilant.

Nimos said:
That is what objective moral means.

Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. Some people may think of objective morality as commandments from God, while other people may think the universe has some objective rules we may follow.

So if these morals comes from God and one believes that, he is the one deciding them and they are not up for interpretation. So basically it doesn't matter whether we exist or not, it would be either right or wrong regardless.

Maybe, but it could be fallacious reasoning. Who thinks that is what objective morality means? Children?

Nimos said:
Otherwise it is subjective morality:
Subjective morality says that our morals are all human-made, and can vary from person to person. While there are strong morals shared by most of humanity, such as killing, many morals are subjective as to whether or not they are correct.

That is what they mean, as I said (maybe to you or someone else, can't remember) I don't believe objective morality is true, I think all are subjective. Which is also why, I don't think that William Lane Craig argument is all that bad. But also see no reason to defend against it, as I don't believe objective morality exists, but a lot of atheist do. And obvious most religious people will probably argue that God is the authority here and support objective morality in one way or another. Also why I was interested in hearing if some religious people did not believe in objective morality, because that would be interesting to hear about.

Why must morals be human made to vary based upon situation?

halbhh · Mar 29, 2021

Does atheism scare me? No -- though for different reason than some might suppose.

I'm sanguine about even the modern militant ideologies and all the rhetoric painting false pictures (slanders) against Christianity, even in spite of understanding that when a group is demonized in rhetoric (such as the propaganda against the God of the old testament in forums like this one), eventually it translates into attacks:

The Texas shooter 'preached atheism' and was an outcast, say former classmates
(and killed 26)

But that doesn't make me afraid at all, honestly.

I began to believe what Christ taught because I tested it, and have become confident now that he knows what he is talking about. So, I just don't fear even the worst in people anymore. Not really.

Nimos said:
I have seen a lot of debate between atheism and religion, whether that is about the truth of it, morally and so forth.

However have noticed that in some of them, especially when it comes to the question of morality, that its not uncommon that an argument like "Without God there is no moral justification" or "without God nothing would prevent people from just doing whatever they want", just to clarify, I don't believe those people using these types of arguments (at least not the majority of them) make the claim that atheists can't be moral. But rather that this is an argument for the likelihood of God. Meant in such way, that atheists might claim that they don't believe in a God, but without one, there is no explanation or reason for objective morality, therefore God offers the best explanation, atheists just won't or are to ignorant to see the evidence. This post is not meant to be about morality, but rather how people view atheism.

So to those of you which are religious and believe in objective morality, would you be afraid of becoming an atheist, meaning that you fear you might lose some moral "control", or what to say?

If you for whatever reason, do not believe in objective morality as a religious person, I would also be very interested to hear, why that is the case?

(If you want a quick introduction to what Im talking about, this is a debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan, where William present the argument. Hopefully it should start the correct place at 22.45 and end roughly around 26.30 depending on how much you care to watch.)

Augustus · Mar 29, 2021

TagliatelliMonster said:
All those people acted upon reprehensible ideologies. That they happened to be also atheists is no more relevant then some of them having mustaches.

This is like saying jihadis "acted upon reprehensible ideologies. That they happened to also believe in god is no more relevant than some of them having moustaches."

Simply being a theist doesn't make someone a jihadi, but arguing that belief in god is purely coincidental to jihadism and no more relevant than having a moustache would be inane.

Atheism was a core tenet of 'orthodox' Marxist-Leninist Communism, just as belief in God is a core tenet of fundamentalist Islam. Neither is incidental to the broader ideology.

No idea why so many 'rationalists' who claim to value evidence and objectivity are so intent on denying what is such an obvious and well attested historical fact.

It is a fundamental fact that in every single detail Marxism is incompatible with views emanating from a faith in the Supernatural. Furthermore, Communism is persistently and openly hostile to them. This hostility is not a matter of secondary importance, it is not a contingently developed interaction between competing intellectual systems. This hostility towards religion is the core of the teaching of historical and dialectical materialism - the philosophical doctrine of the Communist Party of the USSR... Co-existence between atheistic materialism and the religious interpretation of reality is theoretically and practically impossible. Hostility towards religion is not a matter of contingency, but a profound, fundamental world-view commitment of the official ideology of Communism

A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheist Leninism and Soviet Anti-religious Policies vol 1 - Dimitry Pospielovsky

joe1776 · Mar 29, 2021

Revoltingest said:
Certainly many animals (including us) have a sense of morality.
There are tendencies. But I don't see these as absolute or true.
Moreover, there's great variation on their emergence in various
individuals & cultures. We usually abhor murder, but some
cultures allow it, eg, honor killing, apostates. There is no value
that is universal.

The judgments of conscience are universal. They don't seem so because only minds unbiased on the relevant case can judge. This concept is recognized in courtrooms all over the world. Honor killings are the result of a cultural bias. A case like that would have to be switched to another court -- a new venue -- for justice to prevail.

osgart · Mar 29, 2021

Nimos said:
But where would objective morality then come from, if you should guess? Who/what would decide what is objectively morally right and wrong?

Well it would all be predicated on what constitutes physical and psychological harm and/or damage. Anything that causes that is immoral regardless of how anyone feels about it.

I also think that people know what is deserved and not deserved.

If we can talk about discretion, honesty, and fairness then we are talking about objective morality.

People can decide what is deserved and not deserved but there is an actual deserve regardless of someone's ability to discern it.

Morality is an ingredient of trust. - morality is vice. + Morality is virtue.

There is deceit, cheating, and stealing and honesty, fairness, and duty. If those that are good qualities didn't exist then no cooperation nor any type of quality society would exist.

It almost seems like it comes from somewhere with the intention of life and good things behind it. But as far as I can see and know in existence there is no such plan for life to thrive and be objectively moral. We all exist in a harsh reality with no guarantees of survival or good things happening.

Does atheism scare you?

Well-Known Member

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Well-Known Member

Rogue Theologian

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Well-Known Member

Rogue Theologian

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

wind and rain touch not this brain

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Wanderer From Afar

wind and rain touch not this brain

The wonder and awe of "all things".

…

Well-Known Member

Nothing my eye, Something for sure