Atheisms moral deficiency and apologetics

[touchingcloth]

leads to death and destitution. It is a matter of asking why it has led to death and destitution. The examples provided are not mere correlations. They are fulfillment of Nietzsche's predictions. I can't help but notice that, even though I have pointed out and highlighted this issue REPEATEDLY, you have no interest in responding to it.
...
FACT: Nietzsche predicted the death and destitution that characterized the 20th century based on the rise of atheism

I read your examples, and didn't find them even close to being evidence for your position. From your link Nietzsche predicted
- The faith men formerly invested in God they would now invest in barbaric “brotherhoods with the aim of the robbery and exploitation of the non-brothers.”
- There would be “wars such as have never been waged on earth.”
- There no longer would be Truth but, rather, “truth” in quotation marks, depending upon which concoction of eternal verities the modem barbarian found most useful at any given moment.

Very vague predictions, and not seemingly based on atheism as the cause. Bear in mind that all sorts of people have made similar vague predictions about the C20th, and a good number of them will have come true. Just as a psychic making a prediction which then becomes true doesn't validate their claim to be a psychic, nor does Nietzsche making a prediction (based, as you say, on atheism) rule out the possibility that he was right for other reasons.

The claim that atheism necessarily leads to all these things is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence behind it.

[hatsoff]

My argument has been the entire time that atheism--as a metaphysical position--necessarily leads to certain ethically abominable consequences. Put differently, atheism, though itself not an ethical position, has certain necessary ramifications on ethics, chief among those being the total devaluation of man, and that ethical position results in the carnage we've been forced to suffer through.

Yes, that's what you've been saying. The problem is, you've outright refused to defend those charges.

Maybe God doesn't exist, but if you have ANY hope of living in a peaceful world, you'd best cover that fact up, because once you take that view, there's nothing left but death.

I see no evidence this is the case.

Think about what is being said before you comment on it.

I could ask the same of you. Please don't be rude, or else I'll just write you off as a troll and be done with you. So, if you're interested in a dialogue with me, you'll have to reign in your churlishness.

Further, your comments in this particular case had nothing to do with my words you quoted. I can't help but note that you didn't deal with that particular subject matter.

Of course I did---by pointing out that you have thus far declined to support your charges with evidence.

Remember, you asked why it was unfortunate for you that you disagreed with the foundations of America. I DEMONSTRATED. It puts you on the wrong side of history in two ways, both of which are directly relevant to demonstrating the connection between atheism and brutality.

That's just an opinion, not a demonstration.

Yes, because moral rights exist in atheism

Suppose I pull out a gun and shoot you to prevent you from exercising your freedom of speech. You say I've violated your "moral right." And who, pray tell, gave you that moral right in the first place? The government? No, because that would be a legal right. Other people? Then it isn't inherent with you, and, as I already demonstrated, that's just another form of government, anyway. Yourself? Why should I care one way or another what YOU think you have a right to?

But I do have to admit that I like that logic quite a bit. In fact, I'm going to use it. I am going to go to the bank and declare that I have a right to a million dollars. Morally. Yes, quite wonderful . . . if all we have to do is declare our own rights . . .

I don't see the point of any of this. What do you think these hypothetical situations show? That rights are lacking without government? How on earth might you have reached that conclusion?

Get real. In atheism, there are no moral rights because there is no morality. Everything is simply a matter of opinion. So you are left with legal rights, which presupposes a legal system, which presupposes a government, which is Statism. So there you have it, demonstrated again: atheism necessarily leads to statism.

You're just repeating yourself at this point, and not demonstrating anything.

Ridiculous. One's view on God has necessary ramifications on one's view of humanity. If God does not exist, then human beings can have no intrinsic worth, no intrinsic rights.

They don't have "intrinsic rights" if God exists, either. In that case, they'd have divinely-granted rights.

But of course I'm not talking about intrinsic or inherent rights. Rights are freedoms granted by one party on another. God can do this, if he exists, and people can do it, too.

Take a few minutes a study some theology. If you like, start a different thread on it. The doctrine of God is incoherent without these doctrines, which is why, by the way, they are a part of classical theism.

I'd be curious to hear why you think God is incapable of torturing a human being, or how you came to think your opinion is embodied in all of classical theism.

[Jac3510]

I read your examples, and didn't find them even close to being evidence for your position. From your link Nietzsche predicted
- The faith men formerly invested in God they would now invest in barbaric “brotherhoods with the aim of the robbery and exploitation of the non-brothers.”
- There would be “wars such as have never been waged on earth.”
- There no longer would be Truth but, rather, “truth” in quotation marks, depending upon which concoction of eternal verities the modem barbarian found most useful at any given moment.

Very vague predictions, and not seemingly based on atheism as the cause. Bear in mind that all sorts of people have made similar vague predictions about the C20th, and a good number of them will have come true. Just as a psychic making a prediction which then becomes true doesn't validate their claim to be a psychic, nor does Nietzsche making a prediction (based, as you say, on atheism) rule out the possibility that he was right for other reasons.

The claim that atheism necessarily leads to all these things is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence behind it.

How are these vague?

The first predicts that men would make the State into God (the rise of Statism). Never before in human history had such a nation existed, and then we have a plethora of them in the 20th century. Seems pretty specific.

The second predicts not simply wars, but wars as neverbefore on earth, and SPEFICALLY these wars would come about because of the God-States. That is EXACTLY what happened in the 20th century. Never before in human history . . .

The third is the loss of truth, which is profoundly evident in our culture today. This is hardly "vague." He predicted the rise of a particular intellectual movement, and he was exactly correct.

Now, I'm not making him into some kind of psychic. I'm answering your question about the necessary connection. He made very specific predictions predicated upon his own understanding of atheism and what it would inevitaby lead it, and he was right. But further, all of these were EASY predictions to make, given the nature of atheism.

1. If God does not give men rights, then States must, making the State to be God. The corrolary to this is that the State assigns value to men, rather than value being intrinsic to the man--remember that Nietzsche properly recognized the existential nihilism that comes with atheism.

2. Given the corrolary of existential nihilism, and the given that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely (the only restrain being morality, which, under atheism, has been abolished), the prediction that States would absolutely destroy one another is terrifyingly obvious. But not only one another, yet even themselves. Or have you not looked even once at the French Terror? Allow me to quote from Robespierre:

• The goal of the constitutional government is to conserve the Republic; the aim of the revolutionary government is to found it... The revolutionary government owes to the good citizen all the protection of the nation; it owes nothing to the Enemies of the People but death... These notions would be enough to explain the origin and the nature of laws that we call revolutionary ... If the revolutionary government must be more active in its march and more free in his movements than an ordinary government, is it for that less fair and legitimate? No; it is supported by the most holy of all laws: the Salvation of the People.

There is the impact of your atheism. It doesn't take any level of sophistication to see the ramifications.

3. The loss of truth is equally obvious in atheism. Certainly morality becomes relative (which is another way of saying "non-existant"). But so, too, does all knowledge, something that even Darwin recognized: "With me [says Darwin] the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?"

Of course, when all knowledge becomes relative, then nothing has any real meaning, and everything truly does become permissible. We have no means at all to declare anyone right or wrong about anything. And yet, we do, which is precisely where intolerance and bigotry make their profound entrance. For it is not intolerant to tell a child that she is wrong if she adds two and two and gets five, for the simple reason that she is objectively wrong. But it is intolerant to tell her that she is wrong for liking chocolate ice cream. And yet, if ALL knowledge, especially moral knowledge, is merely a matter of opinion, then ANYTIME you tell someone they are wrong, you are being an intolerant bigot. That includes, by the way, telling slave owners that they can't own slaves. But more often, it leads to the type of intolerance we have today, which is the intolerance of religion. Should we go through history cataloging the suppression of religious freedom directly because it interferes with your atheistic propoganda?

No, Nietzsche saw all of this coming precisely because he was honest. He embraced his existential nihilism because, at least, he was honest. Are atheists today even half the man he was, or will you continue to cling to your childish fantancies that there can be meaning and value and purpose and morality in a godless world?

I don't think you will, which is morally abominable. And if you do, you are still embracing a morally abominable position. Sorry, but atheism is evil in every sense of the word, and we, as a society, should do everything we can to stamp it out and marginalize it for the foolishness it is and the danger it presents to modern man.

You want a reason to believe in God? Here's one. Because it provides the only metaphysical basis on which to maintain what you already know to be true: that human beings have rights that ought not be violated by anyone.

[touchingcloth]

The first predicts that men would make the State into God (the rise of Statism).

It doesn't though, does it. Not without bludgeoning to fit the shape of the prediction. Have you ever seen the interpretations of facts to fit quotes by Nostradamus proponents?

The second predicts not simply wars, but wars as neverbefore on earth

Not that there had never been conflicts with comparable death tolls before (there had), but to predict wars "as never before" is a pretty safe prediction, what with the rise of industry during Nietzsche's time.

1. If God does not give men rights, then States must, making the State to be God.

Erm, it only makes the state god if you define god to be that which gives rights.

You need to provide very strong evidence of a causative effect of atheism on all of the outcomes you have described, not just these wooly predictions.

[Jac3510]

Yes, that's what you've been saying. The problem is, you've outright refused to defend those charges.

Wrong. You've just outright refused to interact with the basic propositions I've put forward and instead are busy trying to obfuscate the issues. Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

I see no evidence this is the case.

Read any history book on the past 100 years. Or this thread, since I can only conclude you haven't been. Either works.

I could ask the same of you. Please don't be rude, or else I'll just write you off as a troll and be done with you. So, if you're interested in a dialogue with me, you'll have to reign in your churlishness.

I have to assume you wrote me off a long time ago, otherwise, you would have actually been interacting with the ideas put forward rather than making these absurd side comments that serve only to distract the conversation. I mean, do you really think I was equating Statism with atheism when the very syntax of my sentences denied that possibility? I doubt it. It seems to me you are just trying to play games, which certainly makes one of us a troll . . .

Of course I did---by pointing out that you have thus far declined to support your charges with evidence.

Hmmm . . . let's quote it, shall we?

Because it puts you in the unfortunately position of being on the wrong side of history on the two key issues:

1. The inherent morality of theism (in the founding principles of America) and its benefits to the world, and
2. the inherent immorality of atheism (in the founding principles of Russia, Red China, the French Revolution, etc.) and its plague upon the world.

Let me put it bluntly: your philosophy is directly responsible for the deaths and destitution of more people in history than any other.

Again, that's just ridiculous. Atheism and statism are two entirely different positions. You need to actually demonstrate a connection before anyone is going to take your criticisms seriously.

Yeah, I'm sorry, I just don't see how how assering that atheism and statism are two different positions (which I certainly don't disagree with) has any bearing on you being on the wrong side of history. Would you like to offer a clarification?

That's just an opinion, not a demonstration.

Ah, you think it's merely an opinion that America has been a force for good in this world, and that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et. al. have been a force for evil? If you think you do, then I rest my entire case. If that's where atheism leads you, then I've proven my point about its moral inferiority.

I don't see the point of any of this. What do you think these hypothetical situations show? That rights are lacking without government? How on earth might you have reached that conclusion?

You think that I am arguing that rights are lacking without government? I have to conclude that you aren't even READING me at this point. Perhaps rather than telling you to think about the posts before you comment, you should have first read them. Here, let me quote the relevant part of my words that should have headed off this silly conclusion on your part: "And lest you complain about me being inconsistent, let me assure you that God is and has a government of His own. You are certainly under God's rule, whether you choose to accept that or not."

So, what do I think these hypotheticals show? Again, let me just quote myself: " In atheism, there are no moral rights because there is no morality. Everything is simply a matter of opinion. So you are left with legal rights, which presupposes a legal system, which presupposes a government, which is Statism. " Funny, because you quoted those very words and then said . . .

You're just repeating yourself at this point, and not demonstrating anything.

OF COURSE I'M REPEATING MYSELF. That is called a conclusion. You asked me to demonstrate why my assertion--the one I began this thread with--is true. I gave you a series of points that concluded in this statement. And yet you separate the conclusion only to ask what the conclusion is, and then you take this conclusion and try to read it as a supporting point, and accuse me of repeating myself. I'm trying very hard not to be rude, but the whole thinking things through before you post is right in front of my eyes--or, perhaps, to use your idea rather than mine, we are simply playing a game of trolls?

They don't have "intrinsic rights" if God exists, either. In that case, they'd have divinely-granted rights.

But of course I'm not talking about intrinsic or inherent rights. Rights are freedoms granted by one party on another. God can do this, if he exists, and people can do it, too.

Wrong. You have a bad habit of reading your worldview into theism.

If God created men with certain rights, then those rights ARE intrinsic to man, in that to have those rights is part of what it means to BE man. Emotions, for instance, are intrinsic to people. The fact that God created and gave them to us doesn't mean that emotions are no longer intrinsic.

So, the argument stands, unless, of course, you want to argue that the State created humans. I'll assume you don't.

I'd be curious to hear why you think God is incapable of torturing a human being, or how you came to think your opinion is embodied in all of classical theism.

Then I suggest you read these two threads:

Divine Simplicity
The Emotions of God

Beyond all of this, I'll direct you to my reply to TC above.

[Jac3510]

It doesn't though, does it. Not without bludgeoning to fit the shape of the prediction. Have you ever seen the interpretations of facts to fit quotes by Nostradamus proponents?

Yes, it does.

"The faith men formerly invested in God they would now invest in barbaric “brotherhoods with the aim of the robbery and exploitation of the non-brothers.”

Men once put their faith in God--now they put their faith in the State, which is exactly what "“brotherhoods with the aim of the robbery and exploitation of the non-brothers" is. When these brotherhoods become God, they become the foundation of society and the thing that gives rights and value and meaning, which, by the way, is exactly what happened.

Not that there had never been conflicts with comparable death tolls before (there had), but to predict wars "as never before" is a pretty safe prediction, what with the rise of industry during Nietzsche's time.

You really think that WWI and WWII were on par with wars of the past, the only difference being technology? You really don't see a substantive different in the two world wars and, say, the An Shi Rebellion or the Napoleonic Wars?

Erm, it only makes the state god if you define god to be that which gives rights.

Uhm . . . if the reference is to ultimate rights--that which ones places his/her faith in for those rights--then that is exactly what God is, and the State in atheism.

You need to provide very strong evidence of a causative effect of atheism on all of the outcomes you have described, not just these wooly predictions.

No, you have the cart before the horse. HISTORICALLY, atheism has led to these atrocities. The question is WHY. The answer is that it devalues, by its nature, human life and rejects any kind of real morality, all the while forcing a "might makes right" view of justice.

That explains from a causal perspective what happened. From that, two questions arise, which correspond to the two positions I articulated that could be held:

1. Must it happen to be consistent with atheism (the strong view)?
2. If not, why did it happen under atheism (the weak view)?

I say "yes" to the first for the simple reason that when human life is meaningless, morality can serve as no check on the State. And when you view the State as absolutely sovereign, what reason could you possibly offer it, beyond self-preservation, for not expanding and protecting itself by any means necessary? None, as it turns out.

Yet even if you reject the first, you are left with the second. Atheism certainly tends to destroy humanity. As belief in God dies, man dies. Perhaps that is just due to how man is hardwired, but you can't deny reality. What is so disgusting about the position is that it provides no basis on which to denounce any evil from slavery to Stalin. It is truly dangerous and needs to be stamped out.

[Jac3510]

I'm going to step back from this discussion a bit and ask some of the others here to take a wack at your objections. I started this thread in the CT section more than anything to get other Christians' views (that is, after all, what this board is supposed to be about). I don't blame you two for defending your position. I would feel the need to defend Christianity if someone made the argument that it is fundamentally bad for humanity, too.

I would, however, like to see how someone other than myself responds, beacuse I think I've seen the extent of your defense and what my own responses would be. I would be particulary interested, at this point, in other Christians' views, whether positive or negative, on the discussion; I would also be very interested to see how others respond as they may take the debate in a different direction that I would have not considered.

I certainly don't think I'll change either of your minds. In light of that, I think this approach would be far more edifying to the purpose of the boards.

So, open invitations--FL, Danny, zoe, Gman, and others who have so far replied--any more thoughts? August, Canuckster, Byblos, Jlay, etc.--what is your take on what is being said here?

edit: FYI, I didn't intend to put a full list of names--if I left you off, don't think I am snubbing! Too many members to list everyone

[touchingcloth]

"The faith men formerly invested in God they would now invest in barbaric “brotherhoods with the aim of the robbery and exploitation of the non-brothers.”

Men once put their faith in God--now they put their faith in the State, which is exactly what "“brotherhoods with the aim of the robbery and exploitation of the non-brothers" is. When these brotherhoods become God, they become the foundation of society and the thing that gives rights and value and meaning, which, by the way, is exactly what happened.

Forgive me, but that is exactly what I'm talking about when I mentioned the bludgeoning of facts to the the wording of a prediction.

You really think that WWI and WWII were on par with wars of the past, the only difference being technology? You really don't see a substantive different in the two world wars and, say, the An Shi Rebellion or the Napoleonic Wars?

WWI, no, because it had its roots deep in the C19th, and was a pretty unique situation what with the forming and splintering of rivalries and alliances in what was becoming Europe. WWII certainly shared some of the hallmarks of the conflicts you mentioned, being much more about conflicting ideologies and conquering.
Technology wasn't the only difference; the scars of WWI and increasing globalism were key as well (both in forming the ideologies, and helping cement new alliances).

[touchingcloth]

I certainly don't think I'll change either of your minds. In light of that, I think this approach would be far more edifying to the purpose of the boards.

Jac - some quality evidence would go a ways to changing my mind. If atheism so necessarily (and I assume by "necessarily" you mean "inescapably" or "always") leads to atrocities, intolerance and bigotry, then provide more and better examples than vague Nietzsche predictions (possibly taken out of context, and possibly cherry-picked).

I'd be interested to hear what the other Christian members of the board have to think; I would hope that they would no more readily accept the egregious claims you have made than I would of another atheist claiming that religions necessarily leads to wars, suffering and intolerance.

[hatsoff]

It seems to me you are just trying to play games, which certainly makes one of us a troll . . .

Well, I have my answer then.

To anyone considering following Jac's advice, take note of this (and TC's) conversation.

[Jac3510]

TC, I hope others offer their thoughts as well. In the meantime, I encourage to consider what I have already presented. The devaluation of human life inherent to atheism does necessarily lead to atrocities, and that has been demonstrated in history and predicted by its advocates. Do you not see that if something is not regarded as worthwhile that it must soon be trampled on in favor of that which is taken to be worthwhile? Do you not see that the atrocities discussed in this thread came about precisely because the devaluation of human life, and in Hitler and Mussulini's case, directly because they were trying to "help" evolution? Your own philosophers (i.e., Dennet) have argued persuasively that evolution is atheism, whatever some Christians may desparately try to do to reconcile the two. Do you not find it abhorrent that you have no basis beyond your personal feelings on which to condemn slavery, and that, in fact, such a position is rationally justifiable--and was rationally justified, by the way, on atheistic and evolutionary propositions?

Tell me, what GOOD has atheism brought into the world? What good is it, in principle, capable of bringing into the world? How can the argument that human beings are inherently meaningless promote, in and of itself, any type of social welfare of any kind? Because it is evident that it has done much of the opposite, and that by its very nature.

[Gman]

Not sure why you chose Hitler/Nazism as an example of atheism...but if we choose a system that was unquestionably atheist (e.g. Khmer Rouge), then I'd like to see Jac provide evidence that the atrocities flowed directly from atheism.

Why not? It's just a belief or religion just like any other belief system..

No reason why not - but at the moment Jac's provided nothing in the way of evidence to show that it is so.

There is no evidence that atheism is a religion?

[touchingcloth]

Not sure why you chose Hitler/Nazism as an example of atheism...but if we choose a system that was unquestionably atheist (e.g. Khmer Rouge), then I'd like to see Jac provide evidence that the atrocities flowed directly from atheism.

Why not? It's just a belief or religion just like any other belief system..

No reason why not - but at the moment Jac's provided nothing in the way of evidence to show that it is so.

There is no evidence that atheism is a religion?

No evidence to show that it necessarily results in all of the things he claims it does.

[Gman]

There is no evidence that atheism is a religion?

No evidence to show that it necessarily results in all of the things he claims it does.

Well according to law, atheism is a protected “religion” under the First Amendment.. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the case Kaufman v McCaughtry. “A Wisconsin prison inmate tried to form an atheist discussion group. Prison authorities refused and Kaufman sued. The court ruled that Atheism is a religion for “legal purposes”.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/V114L3KW.pdf

I believe it does have an influence on people's belief system. Whether to say that anyone who is an atheist is immoral would be a separate question however. I wouldn't think so, but I would say that one's belief system does have a certain effect on one's motives. I think that Nazi Germany is a prime example of that. Basically you can be brain washed to do anything if your mind is open to it...

[touchingcloth]

I think that Nazi Germany is a prime example of that. Basically you can be brain washed to do anything if your mind is open to it...

Nazi Germany was atheist? Godwin is knocking...