Atheisms moral deficiency and apologetics

[Jac3510]

TC, zoe summarized very well the point I am making. I am NOT saying that ALL atheistS are bigots. I am saying that atheiSM, as a system, necessarily leads to it. Again, look at my own words, THE VERY FIRST THING I SAID TO HATSOFF:

I mean that atheism necessarily leads to intolerance and bigotry. Whether you choose to be philosophically consistent is up to you.

This goes along rather well with FLs point. I'm sorry, TC. I would really like to believe that you are sincere and want an honest discussion, that you are telling the truth when you say "some quality evidence would go a ways to changing my mind." But statements like this make that impossible. Why should I believe you are telling the truth? There are only two ways to read this, neither of which are positive for your case at all:

1. Either you read that post and purposefully attributed a position to me that I don't hold, meaning you aren't taking this discussion seriously, or
2. You didn't read the post (or didn't take the time to digest it), meaning you aren't taking my arguments seriously.

Now, if zoe is perfectly capable of seeing exactly what I'm saying, and she and I have never had this conversation before, there's no excuse for you not to have gotten it when I repeatedly explained myself.

The evidence is overwhelming: Atheism, as a worldview, necessarily leads to death, destitution, intolerance, and bigotry. YOU may not be those things, but that has nothing to do with your worldview. As I said earlier, you are just being inconsistent when you do so, living, as you are, on a morality you stole from theism. Atheism allows no intrinsic value to human beings. Any such value is assigned by society, aka, the State, which is nothing but intolerance and bigotry codified. Further, this is not philosophical speculation. This is a matter of history. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and even Hitler acted in direct consequence to their atheistic worldview (and if you think that Hitler was religious, I would point you to Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea). Whether or not these individuals believed in God, and most didn't, they were acting out a particular worldview--an atheistic one, in which human beings are not intrinsically valuable, but, instead, as per humanism, are assigned value by society.

So, as I said before, your philosophy is evil for the simple reason that it is at the root of more death and destitution than any other. It is morally reprehensible. My suggestion to you is to recognize that you DO believe in morality and turn to the God from whom you get it. I've done this long enough to know you won't (or, at least, to not hold my breath), but the cold, hard logic is irrefutable here. You are just being inconsistent with your own thinking.

--------------------

FL, your last line struck me as most interesting, here:

So, Jac, you did this more for those who didn't participate and whom you may never know. As for the loud ones, to Hell with them...for that's where they're headed.

This is why I think that we ought to engage in this kind of apologetic. We are not going to convince any convinced atheists to give up their atheism with whatever arguments we use, be it cosmological, teleological, moral, or whatever. But for those who are listening, I think this type of approach (when done in concert with solid, dispassionate, rational arguments) would do them a great service, for not only would they be given the hard basis on which to believe in God, but they could be given the emotional reasons they need to reject atheism for the wickedness that it is. Just like we have an emotional as well as rational aversion to slavery, society ought to have the same aversion to atheism and those ideas that support it.

[zoegirl]

Jac, as an example....

Consider that the state will be increasingly and has been invovled in defining the degree of humanness and the rights to be attributed to the infirm, the elderly, etc.

Consider the idea that many view euthanasia for humans as repugnant (not talking about living wills or advanced directives) , but there are those out there that view those elderly as not deserving of life. (Peter Singer comes to mind, shoot he even think a 2 year old can be killed)....if those views become more and more the norm, then there is nothing to prevent that.

"Rights" become defined by those in charge....

[Jac3510]

Jac, as an example....

Consider that the state will be increasingly and has been invovled in defining the degree of humanness and the rights to be attributed to the infirm, the elderly, etc.

Consider the idea that many view euthanasia for humans as repugnant (not talking about living wills or advanced directives) , but there are those out there that view those elderly as not deserving of life. (Peter Singer comes to mind, shoot he even think a 2 year old can be killed)....if those views become more and more the norm, then there is nothing to prevent that.

"Rights" become defined by those in charge....

Exactly. Spot on. And this scares me, because I see it happening in America very quickly. There is, I believe, a direct correlation between the loss of religious morality and increase in federal, centralized power. It's like Nietzsche said . . . if you don't put your faith in God, you'll put it in the State.

I can see a day in the not-too-distant future when the government gets to decide who lives or dies (via a rationing of health care). When that happens, the philosophical tide is turned, I'm afraid, permanently, because the underlying assumption is just the one we are talking about in this thread: the gov't gives its citizens the right to live. Were we, though, to get back to our theistic roots, which hatsoff has expressly rejected, that wouldn't be possible. Yet ANOTHER example of how atheism necessarily leads to the moral degradation of man.

[Gman]

The evidence is overwhelming: Atheism, as a worldview, necessarily leads to death, destitution, intolerance, and bigotry.

Can lead to those things.... Then yes I would agree with that. Will lead to that would be a different story because of the way it would be followed by the individual.

[Gman]

It's the same argument with Darwinism. It's not that Darwinism is atheism, but a lot of this appears to be the argument that is going on between the two.

[Jac3510]

G, I'm not speaking of individual persons. I am speaking of the logical conclusions of worldviews. Since atheism by its nature does not allow for intrinsic human rights, then atheism, by its nature, provides no rational restraint on the one's attempt to fulfill their desires. It does lead necessarily to death, bigotry, etc.

Again, an individual may well choose not do engage in such behavior, but if they do, they are certainly NOT appealing to their atheism in making such a choice. In fact, the very fact that they are choosing NOT to engage in that behavior is CONTRARY to their worldview. That's the point I've been making all along, which is why atheistic regimes have committed, in recorded history, the atrocities they have.

As far as evolution goes, I'm sorry, it IS atheism. That's been recognized by both theistic and atheistic philosophers. I realize there are some Christians, and theists generally, who try to merge the two, but Darwinism can't be separated from atheism. That's why Hitler becomes an interesting case study along side Mao. While the latter was expressly atheist and the former was not, still, Hitler did what he did in an express attempt to be consistent with Darwinism (we know this from his own words; this is not speculation). The same can be said for Mussolini!

Anyway, my wife is calling me, so I've got to run. I'd just like to point out that this is why I said that there are two positions one can take with this approach, a strong and a weak view. While I support the strong correlation, I don't want that to overshadow the fact that the weaker correlation can still be argued for and is still just as potent an argument against atheism.

[Gman]

As far as evolution goes, I'm sorry, it IS atheism. That's been recognized by both theistic and atheistic philosophers.

Jac, you know where I stand on Darwinism and atheism... You know that I'm not a friend to either thoughts. Probably the most on this board. I would just have a hard time labeling Darwinism as atheism or equal to atheism. I agree that there are many similarities but I just wouldn't go that far....

I would say however that they fuel each other....

[touchingcloth]

TC, zoe summarized very well the point I am making. I am NOT saying that ALL atheistS are bigots. I am saying that atheiSM, as a system, necessarily leads to it.

Thanks for clarifying - up til this point it still wasn't clear whether or not your view was that all atheists are bigots or not. In light of what you do believe, your choice of the word "necessary" is more than a little puzzling.

The evidence is overwhelming: Atheism, as a worldview, necessarily leads to death, destitution, intolerance, and bigotry.

Then provide the evidence. So far you've provided some predictions by Nietzsche that are far from compelling, much less overwhelming.

By way of further clarification would you agree with the statements that atheism necessarily leads to bigtory, while theism does not - regardless of the flavour of theism and regardless of the existence or other wise of god/s?

[Canuckster1127]

Since I was asked to earlier, I'll weigh in on this.

I tend to agree with Jac's assessment of atheism as a system reducing to nihilism (not his word, but the technical term for what I think he's pointing toward).

I'm less dogmatic when it comes to establishing a correlation between atheism as a stated system within a form of government that it is what leads to the atrocities of the 20th century. That's not to say that there isn't evidence for that claim. The problem with attempting to establish a one to one correlation in this type of association is that it doesn't follow that there is only one influencing factor upon which to draw this conclusion and the broadness of the assertion is such that the margin of error or the potential for confounding factors renders it as an opinion rather than an established fact.

I do think however, that this is a valid observation to fall back to when facing the more common claim from those criticizing theism and thiestic forms of government as leading to similar atrocities in the name of God or religion.

In both these instances I see something more directly responsible. The common factor in both instances is the nature of man. Whether power becomes available to one particular individual or an elite within a society on the basis of a religious based system or a secular based system, the temptations and opportunities for abuse are roughly equal. One can argue that in a theoretical realm, a person who is following the core values of what their espoused system pruports to stand for, who is acting in the highest conformity with those values, is less likely to abuse their power and more likely to act in a manner that is self-denying and promoting the welfare of the greater society.

I think that is a fair assertion to make, in theory.

In practice however, I look back upon history and I see atrocities commited in the name of God by those who believed they were acting in accordance with God's direction to them. For that matter, I see that today and I think it is a valid argument that the greatest contemporary threat on today's scene is coming from the extreme religious zealotry of a faction of Islam that encourages violence in the name of their God. While I believe (and I fully own that I may be biased) that Christianity as a whole has been less prone to type of zealotry I accept that Christianity is not exempt from these observations and that in the past much that I believe to be completely contrary to the values and commands of Christ has been done in His name. Again, in these instances I see the root of these acts not within the purest sense of the values of Christ, but rather the nature of man which we share in common with mankind within any system.

As a common denominator I also see the image of God as common to people within all systems. When we speak of "weak" or "strong" atheism and speak of atheists or agnostics acting with a sense of corporate and higher morality (which I believe can be the case as well) how I understand this, is that someone can appeal to a higher value and altruistic greater good, and act in accordance with those values despite there being a cognative dissonance with the logical extensions of an atheist philosophy. I interact pretty regularly in another board community that is comprised of many of us who are highly ranked reviewers on Amazon.com. There is a very broad spectrum of religious and non-religious persons. I have interacted with several there, some of whom are strong atheists and I have come to respect many there and (if it's not too self-serving) some of these people have over time come to state that they respect me despite our many differences in belief (or non-belief) and approach. I'm actually pretty glad for that while at the same time, I am not apologetic or any less committed to my belief in God and Christ.

My beliefs however are not based in a collective identification with a religion called "Christianity" (I'm finding myself less willing to volunteer for that label because of all the baggage it carries in the minds of many, and which I don't endorse or identify with); my indentity is with Christ alone and from Him I draw my sense of purpose and values.

So, I don't know that anyone will be happy with what I've said here and that's fine. Religious systems, economic theory and politics are all broader subsets of mankind collectively and while capable of great good, also equally capable of great evil. While I don't agree with those who take the moniker of atheist, I look at many things and I don't have a great deal of difficulty in understanding why there is a rejection of organized religion. It makes me sad as well to see many of the things that have been done in God's name by those who ought to have known better or who were committed in name only and not above acting in their own interests as opposed to the God they claimed. I think when we attempt to elevate theistic systems without recognizing and owning these things, we create barriers to belief for others.

In terms of the US system that's been invoked as evidence for the moral superiority of a system that is based upon the value of recognizing inalienable rights confered by a creator, again, in theory I agree that overall the evidence is that such a system is more likely to lead to a society that provides the greatest good to the broadest number of people within that society. However, my eyes are also wide open to the history of the US and the many contradictions that there are to that broad statement and again, I see the common confounding factor as the nature of man. The checks and balances present in our system tend to practically limit the power of any one individual or branch of government to abuse their power. It's not a perfect system however and it has failed and continues to fail in many areas.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

As far as evolution goes, I'm sorry, it IS atheism. That's been recognized by both theistic and atheistic philosophers.

Jac, you know where I stand on Darwinism and atheism... You know that I'm not a friend to either thoughts. Probably the most on this board. I would just have a hard time labeling Darwinism as atheism or equal to atheism. I agree that there are many similarities but I just wouldn't go that far....

I would say however that they fuel each other....

I would agree with Jac here.

In my discussions with atheists, I used to be surprised at how few of them have ever read Darwin. Here is an interesting quote from The Descent of Man where Darwin suggests that animals may also be self-deluded when it comes to spirits:

The tendency of savages to imagine that natural objects and agencies are animated by spiritual or living essences, is perhaps illustrated by a little fact which I once noticed: my dog, a fully grown and very sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day; but at a little distance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol, which would have been wholly disregarded by the dog, had anyone stood near it. As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and that no stranger had any right to be on his territory.≠

I underlined the above passage in Darwin's book 25 years ago when I was an ardent atheist. Evidently, I thought it made sense! The passage is amusing and could certainly be picked apart by many of you but...it is embedded in a whole section where Darwin affirms that the belief in God is a consequence of our desire to explain that which we do not understand. Indeed, we are just like Darwin's dog and he concludes:

...These miserable and indirect consequences of our highest faculties [that is: belief in spirits/God] may be compared with the incidental and occasional mistakes of the instincts of the lower animals.≠

Even though Darwin peppers his books with the words «God,» «Creator» and so on, the tone is atheistic. Morals arise from the desire to preserve the culture; what is evil is that what is destructive to the culture. Here is a quote from the next chapter where Darwin makes this remarkable statement:

If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.2

...and there would be nothing «wrong» with such a society because the culture determines what is «right» and «wrong.»

Well...I have to go and earn a living now. More later.

FL

≠ Part 1, Chap. 3, Belief in God - Religion. Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals
2 Chap. 4, introduction.

[DannyM]

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...

Godwin's law says nothing about the validity in actually bringing the 'Nazi' factor in; it merely says that the longer an internet discussion goes on, the more likely it is that Nazism will be mentioned. Some have used Godwin's to claim that whoever mentions "the Nazis" first has lost the debate- this is a tactic used by kiddie debaters who have yet to mature in their debate. (I'm not lumping you there, TC, of course, but I would urge you not to be so sceptical of a debate simply because Nazi Germany gets a mention.

[DannyM]

Brutality goes hand in hand with atheism. The French revolution and the massacre of clergy and socialites was "necessary" and acceptable for atheism's goal of the eradication of religion. This was the philosophy behind the early porotagonists' actions. If anyone even doubts this, then I suggest a reading of the history of atheism over the last 300 years. It is a worldview built on a protest. Atheism has no moral compass whatsoever and any morals held by the atheist are entirely drawn from religion and, in the case of the Western world, Christianity. 2000 years of Christian civilisation. As Jac has pointed out, America's constitution is built on fundamentally Christian ideals: the equal dignity of men, for example. Many things we take for granted, like our respect for our neighbour, our sense of justice, our value of human dignity and human life, are all directly taken from Christianity and the Christian ethic. When an atheist tells you that he doesn't need Christianity to have a moral compass, tell him EXACTLY like it is and then ask for an apology for such an ungrateful attitude. Atheism, in the modern sense, was founded on a protest- somewhat justified- of church corruption and theocracy, and- somewhat unjustified- as a rebellion against morality. The trouble is that Christianity is such a diverse entity, adjusting itself to the times while remaining true to its wonderful foundations, that atheism has become stagnent, outdated, and frankly rather silly looking. Atheism actiually needs Christianity to be corrupt, theocratic etc to justify itself and to appeal to something rather substantially more than 2.4% of the world's population. Christianity moved on and left atheism in its wake. Atheistic regimes continue to oppress, and yet some people still do not 'get it.'

[Canuckster1127]

Let me know how that approach works out for you Danny.

[touchingcloth]

To characterise the French Revolution as being something that was intended to further an atheist agenda is laughable. The backlash against the Roman Catholic church was, like that against the nobility, borne out of a constellation of factors - one of which being the abuse of power/position exercised by church and nobility.

And if you think atheists should be thanking Christianity, you should take a look at where Christian ethics came from. You speak like they were without any precedent.

[DannyM]

To characterise the French Revolution as being something that was intended to further an atheist agenda is laughable. The backlash against the Roman Catholic church was, like that against the nobility, borne out of a constellation of factors - one of which being the abuse of power/position exercised by church and nobility.

And if you think atheists should be thanking Christianity, you should take a look at where Christian ethics came from. You speak like they were without any precedent.

I suggest you read your history. Atheism from the very beiginning came hand in hand with brutality. Fight it all you like, TC, I'm dealing with history, not romanticism.