Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really I think history kind of answers you there. Man-kind of ran amok. They were er..... 'rationalists'. You guys are hard to trust!...;-)....
At the risk of invoking Godwin's law....
Would religion have prevented the evil genocidal dictators?
Pol Pot and Stalin were monsters, but I will contend that atheism did not make them monsters. They were power hungry, hate filled tyrants who simply happened to be atheists. In the same way that Hitler and many others were power hungry, hate filled tyrants who happened to be christians.
Torquemada may or may not have been driven by religion. Pretty much everybody else behaves the way they want despite religion. Did religion stop southern plantation owners from keeping slaves?
You have a whole lot of explaining to do if you are going to try and blame atheism for the ills of the world.
You have a whole lot of explaining to do if you are going to try and blame atheism for the ills of the world.
No I wouldn't want to suggest that. My post was to highliught the fact that an 'experiment' occurred and it failed dismally.
So
1. We had a moral order.
2. It was technically overthrown-a new moraliy came in with a new rationalization.
3. It was wretched for humanity.
In a way, I am glad you do get opposition and a good deal of it. You guys remind me of Dr. Frankenstein. Deep down with all that intellectual thinking you I'm afraid that do not know what you are dealing with. Man can be an unfathomable creature. You build ramparts but all I see is wispy vacuousness to a future devoid of 'God'. I do not think you care at all about consequences.
By all accounts czarist Russia wasn't exactly a paradise. I am not sure that I would really call it a place with a "moral order". I could not comment on Cambodia, as I have no clue.
This portion of the conversation is a red herring on two levels though.
First, as I noted previously, neither society was founded with atheism as a primary driving force. Russia was a reaction against an established corrupt monarchy. It was an economic revolution, not a philosophical/religious revolution. Atheism was a footnote when it comes to causes. It's hardly fair to blame atheism for anything that happened there.
Second, doesn't the truth mean anything here? Whether your unsupported claims that religion makes for better societies is true or not is somewhat irrelevant. Taking a stance for truth, namely that god is an unprovable concept and the universe follows naturalistic law has got to be worth something.
Third, I would argue that until atheism claims equal (or superior) footing with religion, any secular moral system will be attacked simply because it is secular. Religious people will be inherently distrustful simply because it is different.
My apologies for the digression. We are far away from the original question, and atheism in and of itself has no stand on morality. It does become a reasonable assumption that a secular moral system can be developed, but that is not contingent upon atheism.
Really I think history kind of answers you there. Man-kind of ran amok. They were er..... 'rationalists'. You guys are hard to trust!...;-)....
History only answers you there if one accepts the accusation that atheist society is to be equated with dictators. The line I take is that they were not rational societies. They took Marxism as an unquestionable dogma. Questioning did not lead to discussion. It led to persecution.
In that respect the dictators (right wing ones are different kettle of Ixths ) had more in common with theocracies.
Fishbrains makes a good point. That at bottom, fact and reason - based thinking beats superstition, even if that superstition makes people behave nicely - an arguable supposition in itself.
And I don't think we are digressing to much. All this discussion about the behaviour of atheists as individuals or in groups, is valid to the thread, I think.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-11-2014 at 07:10 PM..
No I wouldn't want to suggest that. My post was to highliught the fact that an 'experiment' occurred and it failed dismally.
So
1. We had a moral order.
2. It was technically overthrown-a new moraliy came in with a new rationalization.
3. It was wretched for humanity.
In a way, I am glad you do get opposition and a good deal of it. You guys remind me of Dr. Frankenstein. Deep down with all that intellectual thinking you I'm afraid that do not know what you are dealing with. Man can be an unfathomable creature. You build ramparts but all I see is wispy vacuousness to a future devoid of 'God'. I do not think you care at all about consequences.
We care very much about consequences, though I concede that not enough thought has been given to how best to order a generally secularist global worldview. The lessons of the past should be learned. Rejecting religion in favour of some other dogma (in revolutionary France the basic idea of a religion reason was ok, but it was overrun by power -hungry -rival claques using traitors to the new order as a pretext for terrorizing the opposition and keeping themselves in power - until some other bunch got power and began persecuting them) lead to evils that we recognize very well.
As to 'failed dismally', the French experiment at its best led to the way to how America is run and that (plus the British parliamentary system) has become a model for much of the rest of the world. I certainly think that realizing the French tricolor ideal of reason, and having people use it rather than be led by instinct, let alone political manipulation, would avoid those problems you indicated.
So I do reckon that I know what we are dealing with, and I believe that understanding of our evolutionary competitive instincts and drives would help us to understand it even better. I believe that this has to come someday, sooner or later, and so rather than shying away from the idea, we should get ready for it. Sooner, rather than later.
Excellent point. The ideals of the enlightenment are a pretty good basis for secular morality and the foundation of a secular, rational, godless society.
I am going to have to go to some random thread and rep a few random people before I can get you again too.
Excellent point. The ideals of the enlightenment are a pretty good basis for secular morality and the foundation of a secular, rational, godless society.
I am going to have to go to some random thread and rep a few random people before I can get you again too.
The ideals of the enlightenment are a pretty good basis for secular morality and the foundation of a secular, rational, godless society.
I do not doubt rationality and science are good things. I love'em too. But they do not necessarily answer everything posited. For me, I just have a BIG problem with an a-theistic world. It would be a very very leaky ship to be riding on
within the photons.
I'm getting a familiar signal. Goldenrule would understand this very well - a general feeling that, without religion, civilisation would collapse. It is a very common feeling, but I think, like many other very common feelings, it is a delusion. A sort of ingrained fear of change. We see it all the time, especially when there is some some particular way of life to which one is partial that is seen to be under threat. The ongoing resistance of some sections of male society to women getting into male dominated jobs, clubs, sports and of course religion.
And yet, when it done, people get used to it and later on wonder why anyone made any such resistance to it. They must have been living in the stone age or something.
I understand your misgivings, and they are very prevalent. Just like religion. But just loving science and rationality - unless it threatens to unseat the predominance in religious lip -service and authority in our worldview -is not good enough. If science and rationality is credible and is to be trusted, it has to be trusted in what it tells us.
It tells us that there is no sound reason to believe in a god, here on earth, micromanaging our world. It tells us that the Holy books are not credible. It undermines the authority of religion. We are thus left with this pretext for maintaining the familiar status quo because of fear of social collapse. Because of a breakdown in morality. Because nobody would want to help anyone else.
This is at best based on a fear of change. At worst it is based on a false, prejudiced and hostile view of atheism and atheists. As I say, we are not plaster saints, but we are no worse than anyone else. We are just as concerned and compassionate. We would do as much charitable work - because we would want it done for us, if we were on the street or being shelled in Homs. but we wouldn't hand out religious books as we were doing it.
We would protect the innocent and persecute the guilty. But we would use man made moral codes, laws and police (after weeding out the churchgoing right wing racist element that is constantly souring our own force) not some threat of a celestial TV - which doesn't seem to work anyway.
And we would aim for tolerance, liberty and freedom for all under... the blank flag of atheism. Within the platinum -plated rule that lets us do our own thing without messing up anyone else's thing. Without religion and nationalism mixed up together, people wouldn't have irreconcilable differences to fight about.
Without one religion dominating society, anyone who wanted to believe in whatever they wanted to could do so -without risk of being targeted by the national faith which will brook no rival.
We wouldn't have religion taught in school of course, never mind in the science class. Except in say the history and philosophy classes. Oh yes, how to think rationally and logically and identify false arguments such as 'If you are not against Saddam -you must be for him' and 'Just because we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction, doesn't mean they ain't there'. Which would prevent people being bamboozled by political numbskulls and therefore of course is NEVER taught as part of the curriculum.
Religion would then be taught as part of a comparative religion class or course - not one entire class given up to teaching ONE Holy Book as believable fact.
Oh, yes, I have thought about this and I can't wait for it. Vote for it. With your keyboards.
I do not doubt rationality and science are good things. I love'em too. But they do not necessarily answer everything posited. For me, I just have a BIG problem with an a-theistic world. It would be a very very leaky ship to be riding on
within the photons.
Why do you have a problem with an atheistic world? You have mentioned this amorphous fear a couple of times, but other than implying USSR:atheist:bad you haven't actually said anything.
Do you have a secret stash of sharp knives in your basement, a wall of C-D posts printed out lit by candles, and the only thing preventing you from carving Arequipa into pieces while he sleeps is your religion? I suspect that this is not the case, and you do not have any such ill intent. You are not held back from this solely by religion, but rather by your socialization as a human bring.
Please give some specific objections to an atheist society so that we can debater them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) had more in common with theocracies.
the blank flag of atheism. Within the platinum -plated rule that lets us do our own thing without messing up anyone else's thing. Without religion and nationalism mixed up together, people wouldn't have irreconcilable differences to fight about.
