A Question for Atheists
- Thread starter Jenna
- Start date
Like do I think "theism' is useful?
If that is similar to what you asking, yes, it can be 'useful', I suppose. Kind of like, there are some people who have had addiction issues and AA pushes Monotheism on them along with other strategies in stopping the drug use behavior. So in that respect, it was 'useful', I suppose. But Monotheism was unnecessary in stopping their behavior, really.
Also, many religious people do great things for others which is tied to their theism and what they think pleases the gods. But I also understand that the Drug Cartels in Mexico do 'good things' for some ( community service, helping the poor ), but their existence is still detrimental to society as a whole. So while theism of course has some positive effects, I think in the long run it is negative as a whole. Did I understand your question?
Negative as a whole would of course also apply to atheism wouldn't it. Just look where it leads and tremble.
What negative effects on the world have been motivated by a lack of belief in gods and goddesses?
Well, those who have believed that there is no god/godess/creator myth, have killed over 100 million of their fellow men trying to improve society in the present, since their is apparently no mythical kingdom in the after life. Did they do it in the name of atheism, no. But they did it as atheists. The perfectability of man drove the killing of 1/3 of the population cambodia, the atheists in China and the cultural revolution killed as many as 75 million people. The atheists in the soviet union killed over 25 million people. Not to mention all the little atheists around the world, castro and Che guevara and others. The ethics of an atheist can lead to very deadly places.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,930
- Reaction score
- 1,452
You know, you keep saying this, but you're omitting the fact that the events of which you are speaking were driven by cult of personality, where the state and the head of state take the pace of "God," and the ideology of that state took the place of religion.
If people have a need for there to be a Creator Deity to either make them behave well or for them to cope better with the world, then of course it has a place. I have repeatedly said that I do not have any trouble with a persons religious beliefs, just long as they stay their beliefs and their 'church' is not one that feels that killing/persecuting the unbeliever is a legitimate way of carrying out the business of their vision of the divine.
An excellent example, here at MT, of how a person can hold fast to a religious faith and put that across in a way that all can understand is BillM. I don't agree with him but the way he frames his view of faith and the world is one that makes a good deal of sense {and not just to him I mean :lol:} and I wouldn't criticise him just for holding that faith. It's what people do that matters, along with why they do it sometimes.
As a force in the world, however, religion is a terrible thing when it attains organisation and power. For whilst a government is quite likely to think "That country over there has some shiny things we want, let us go with our army and take them", such a decision when backed by a church is all too likely to read:
"Those people over there have a different creation myth to us; let us go and kill them, in the name of {A.N. Other Divine Being} until they believe otherwise". That is what I have a major problem with and I am very happy that, other than a vocal minority, the West is leaving such things behind ... until the oil runs out at any rate :lol:.
An excellent example, here at MT, of how a person can hold fast to a religious faith and put that across in a way that all can understand is BillM. I don't agree with him but the way he frames his view of faith and the world is one that makes a good deal of sense {and not just to him I mean :lol:} and I wouldn't criticise him just for holding that faith. It's what people do that matters, along with why they do it sometimes.
As a force in the world, however, religion is a terrible thing when it attains organisation and power. For whilst a government is quite likely to think "That country over there has some shiny things we want, let us go with our army and take them", such a decision when backed by a church is all too likely to read:
"Those people over there have a different creation myth to us; let us go and kill them, in the name of {A.N. Other Divine Being} until they believe otherwise". That is what I have a major problem with and I am very happy that, other than a vocal minority, the West is leaving such things behind ... until the oil runs out at any rate :lol:.
You can't overlook the fact that atheism was the official belief of the states that murdered all of those people either.
Can everyone agree that as long as everyone resists the urge to persecute or kill other people, they can believe what they want?
Right. But what I'm interested in, is "what beliefs motivate behavior". In your examples, Atheism is not the motivator. But there are countless examples of negativity motivated by what they think the gods want them to do. See the difference?
Of course. Atheists are very strong proponents of free speech. Unfortunately, books like the Quran and the bible say things like " Kill the unbelievers !" It's hard to argue with someone that thinks this is true. Also, if a teacher believes that humans were created by a god as is or 'there was a world wide flood 'cause the bible said so', they will not be able to teach Biology/Earth Science properly. They will have silly biases.
Well that is an excellent starting point. I would add not attempting to foist their 'beliefs' on others or repress ideas based upon provable reason rather than unsupportable fantasy.
By the way, taking an American slant on this (as it's not really a problem we have in Britain), I would still support a persons right to vote for a political candidate who, say, wanted to give Theology an equal airing in schools to teaching Evolution as part of Biology. They're off their rockers to want such a thing but it is their right to vote for it. After all, when I went to school, I had five years of Religious Studies alongside my Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Technical Drawing etc.
With no after life, the "now" becomes all we have, right. If it is imperfect, we have one go at fixing it since once we die, that is all there is. That seems to lead to some quick fix remedies that lead to a lack of concern for other people who might get in the way of fixing the problems, or seem resistant to the fixes of the problems. There seems to be an increase in not seeing people as valuable as individuals under atheism as all those deaths point out. I may not be able to express all there is to atheism and mass murder, but there seems to be a connection. In a very short time, people who followed the belief that religion was the opiate of the masses killed a lot of the masses to get their way. God figure or not, atheism was part of the equation.
Good post and argument. I am actually not very knowledgable of the history of these events, so I'll let someone smarter than me respond if they have anything. But I would like to add that, the idea of the 'afterlife' can do just the opposite as well. Not valuing this life because we'll 'have another'. Not saying things you should have said. Not valuing human life because, who cares, there's an afterlife. I would also add, as said repeatedly by Richard Dawkins, none of us are suggesting that we should have a Darwinian society. It would be a blood thirsty and awful place to live. However, a Darwinian world is the world that we do live in. It is where we came from. Just watch the Discovery Channel. It's a painful world. But we have evolved things like empathy, and because of that, our future doesn't have to be what most would call a Darwinian Society.
I would say that the atheist countries I have mentioned saw the free speech of others as an impediment to fixing the problems they wanted fixed. So, free speech is was not a priority in the atheist societies that have already existed. I am going to stop on the atheist thing because I don't think that was the nature of the post that Jenna wanted to explore, but I would be glad to keep going on another thread Fangjian.
Good question.
A bit of a meandering rant
A belief or lack of belief in a deity or deities should be as personal as possible. Of course as individuals we interact with each other all the time, so it is impossible in many circumstances to not have faith or a lack of it effect ones interpersonal life.
With the exception of MT I rarely bring up my atheist views. I attend weddings, funerals and baptisms in churches to support my friends and family, my personal view in those circumstances are irrelevant, the event is not about me, but I will be there to support those who find it important.
I am very proud of my heritage, included in that is my familys religion. I love going to that little church in Northern Ireland and seeing the gravestones of hundreds of years of my family.
When Im in downtown Toronto and guys are handing out literature on religion, I say no thank you and move on. I dont engage in debate.
I have an elderly lady who I consider a good friend, and at least once or twice a year she gives me a bible and tells me to read it. I thank her and put it in a box with the rest of them.
I do a lot of work in politics, people would be amazed at how many right wing atheists there are, we work to support our candidates, many of whom are very Christian, we put the party above our beliefs.
I have never gone door to door trying to talk people into becoming atheists, its simply not my business.
What is my business is when:
- Religious organizations are given breaks on their property taxes because they are religious, that means my tax dollars are subsidizing them.
- When some criminals are given shorter sentences because they are devoutly religious, that creates two levels of citizens.
- When bibles are given out in public schools.
- When Creationism is treated as science.
- When a nurse friend of mine who is one of the most caring and kindest people I know is publicly chastised for having helped with abortions in her career.
While I disagree with theists, as a libertarian I would defend their right to their beliefs. Just do not keep trying to push your beliefs into the public domain.
A bit of a meandering rant
A belief or lack of belief in a deity or deities should be as personal as possible. Of course as individuals we interact with each other all the time, so it is impossible in many circumstances to not have faith or a lack of it effect ones interpersonal life.
With the exception of MT I rarely bring up my atheist views. I attend weddings, funerals and baptisms in churches to support my friends and family, my personal view in those circumstances are irrelevant, the event is not about me, but I will be there to support those who find it important.
I am very proud of my heritage, included in that is my familys religion. I love going to that little church in Northern Ireland and seeing the gravestones of hundreds of years of my family.
When Im in downtown Toronto and guys are handing out literature on religion, I say no thank you and move on. I dont engage in debate.
I have an elderly lady who I consider a good friend, and at least once or twice a year she gives me a bible and tells me to read it. I thank her and put it in a box with the rest of them.
I do a lot of work in politics, people would be amazed at how many right wing atheists there are, we work to support our candidates, many of whom are very Christian, we put the party above our beliefs.
I have never gone door to door trying to talk people into becoming atheists, its simply not my business.
What is my business is when:
- Religious organizations are given breaks on their property taxes because they are religious, that means my tax dollars are subsidizing them.
- When some criminals are given shorter sentences because they are devoutly religious, that creates two levels of citizens.
- When bibles are given out in public schools.
- When Creationism is treated as science.
- When a nurse friend of mine who is one of the most caring and kindest people I know is publicly chastised for having helped with abortions in her career.
While I disagree with theists, as a libertarian I would defend their right to their beliefs. Just do not keep trying to push your beliefs into the public domain.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #17
Thank you for this post, it expresses a very open and forthright opinion.
Can I ask please Ken, at what point, or in what territory should theism not tread, so to speak, in order to ensure you, as an atheist, are not angered? You mentioned the old chestnut, creationism, so education maybe?
And in which case, if theism did have some place, where would that place to you, as an atheist, actually be?
Thank you.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #18
Also, whilst I appreciate that theism and religion (in the organised sense of the word) are inextricably tied, I think as far as possible I would like to distinguish theism from religion. I understand that is unfeasible in reality, nevertheless... 
Personally I believe what underpins organised religion is the restraint and control of the human psyche in our wilful natures. I believe many sections of the world's religious orthodoxies unfortunately have horrendously abused these underpinnings and are disturbing institutions.
So I mean theism as opposed to organised religions.
If, as was once hypothesised by John Lennon, there were no religions, I wonder do you think would there be a place for theism in a more personal sense?
I hope that is not too long or incoherent a list of questions, thank you.
Personally I believe what underpins organised religion is the restraint and control of the human psyche in our wilful natures. I believe many sections of the world's religious orthodoxies unfortunately have horrendously abused these underpinnings and are disturbing institutions.
So I mean theism as opposed to organised religions.
If, as was once hypothesised by John Lennon, there were no religions, I wonder do you think would there be a place for theism in a more personal sense?
I hope that is not too long or incoherent a list of questions, thank you.
To clarify what this question means and how to answer it, will you answer this one? -.....And in which case, if 'hard polytheism did have some place, where would that place to you, as a monotheist, actually be? (i am assuming for the sake of argument that you are a monotheist)
OP
- Thread Starter
- #20
That is a cool question, thank you
Me, I would not seek to limit where that place of the polytheists would be provided my own personal liberties - as I currently perceive them - are maintained. For example and to cite an example given above, should polytheism be deemed appropriate curriculum material in the school in which my son attended, I would not object - with the caveat that it were not taught to the exclusion of monotheism. I would likewise in that example, be perfectly happy for him to learn in that same school about atheism as I have explained to him frankly myself. Should the school decide that polytheism is to be taught as the "only" true, proper or correct way as part of the curriculum, I would petition the Headteacher. At the very least I would feel it my duty to give all sides of the debate at home myself.Does that answer your question? If not, please ask
