A Right to Believe

[Maps]

To what extent do you feel that people have a ‘right to believe’ in whatever they want. For example, if someone was having a hard time with life, felt the need to add a little something extra, or needed some justification to motivate them to achieve something would you respect their right to go ahead and believe in whatever religion they wanted?

I’m a pragmatist, I think truth is whatever helps us get through the day. Right now, atheism is working out ok for me, but if it becomes inadequate, deeper beliefs (or lack of believe) than atheism will probably lead me back to some religion. That may never happen, but I leave the possibility open.

I also find that I respect different beliefs to different degrees.

First, poetic ideas garner more sympathy from me than coarse ones. Two albums come to mind: In The Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel has a lot about transmigration and afterlife, and I find the ideas more respectable because they’re in a poetic format; also Who Will Survive by Murder by Death deals with sin and repentance, and makes those concepts seem useful or even beautiful. I like art, I guess.

Second, I prefer Kierkegaardian beliefs which refuse to deal with logic and reason except on their own terms, than fundamentalism which tries to reconcile logic and reason with religion (a reconciliation I don’t think can be made).

Third, I have more favorable response to liberal religions than conservative ones, but that’s based solely on my own political dispositions…

Anyway, what about you all?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Maps: To what extent do you feel that people have a ‘right to believe’ in whatever they want.

Right up to the point where their beliefs adversely or detrimentally effect others.

[David B]

To what extent do you feel that people have a ‘right to believe’ in whatever they want. For example, if someone was having a hard time with life, felt the need to add a little something extra, or needed some justification to motivate them to achieve something would you respect their right to go ahead and believe in whatever religion they wanted?

I’m a pragmatist, I think truth is whatever helps us get through the day. Right now, atheism is working out ok for me, but if it becomes inadequate, deeper beliefs (or lack of believe) than atheism will probably lead me back to some religion. That may never happen, but I leave the possibility open.

I also find that I respect different beliefs to different degrees.

First, poetic ideas garner more sympathy from me than coarse ones. Two albums come to mind: In The Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel has a lot about transmigration and afterlife, and I find the ideas more respectable because they’re in a poetic format; also Who Will Survive by Murder by Death deals with sin and repentance, and makes those concepts seem useful or even beautiful. I like art, I guess.

Second, I prefer Kierkegaardian beliefs which refuse to deal with logic and reason except on their own terms, than fundamentalism which tries to reconcile logic and reason with religion (a reconciliation I don’t think can be made).

Third, I have more favorable response to liberal religions than conservative ones, but that’s based solely on my own political dispositions…

Anyway, what about you all?

This OP opens up a whole can of worms about the meaning of 'rights'.

Does the word 'right' mean a legal right? I tend to think so. And if so, then you can believe what you want, even Heavens Gate sort of insanity, as long as it doesn't mean incitement to murder or stuff like that.

Or does it mean some sort of absolute, inaliable right - when one can have freedom of though unless one acts on it, which may get one into legal trouble. As in the fictional case of Hannibal Lector, or the actual case of Ian Brady, or that Dahmer guy.

Does one have the right to be crazy - to believe that black is white, that 2+2=5?

I'd say yes.

All sorts of problems arise, though, if that sort of right infringes the alleged rights of others.

The right to believe that it's a good idea to genitally mutilate ones infant daughters? Sons?

The right to act on beliefs like that?

'Rights' are a whole can of worms.

David B

[Draconis]

I think as long as it's harmless, do and believe as you will

[Vitalstatistix]

There's a bit of equivocation going on so i'll try make a distinction. I've yet to meet an atheist who disapproves of freedom of religion, but I know a couple who disagree with that sort of pragmatism, including myself.

[David B]

There's a bit of equivocation going on so i'll try make a distinction. I've yet to meet an atheist who disapproves of freedom of religion, but I know a couple who disagree with that sort of pragmatism, including myself.

Freedom of religion strikes me as a good rule of thumb. Because, to my mind, it also includes freedom from religion - and the sort of theocracies that have denied, and in some cases continue to deny, that are pretty shillty places to be IMV.

No more than a good rule of thumb, though. The sort of freedom of religion which breaks other good rules of thumb - like not suffering witches to live, or stoning apostates, or genitally mutilating infants of either sex, needs to be stamped on, IMV.

David B

[Maps]

There's a bit of equivocation going on so i'll try make a distinction. I've yet to meet an atheist who disapproves of freedom of religion, but I know a couple who disagree with that sort of pragmatism, including myself.

Yeah, sorry if my OP is less than clear. I'm slightly ill, and the pounding in my head, is not conducive to my clarity, or spelling.

I guess, I'd like to know what problems you have with my sort of pragmatism.

[general_koffi]

Right up to the point where their beliefs adversely or detrimentally effect others.

Bingo. Free countries have freedom of belief.

[David B]

Bingo. Free countries have freedom of belief.

Nice rule of thumb!

But no country is totally free - what with the rule of law, imperfect though it surely is.

And no country has complete freedom of belief, if someone believes that they should act on really bizarre beliefs. Like not suffering a witch to live.

David B (sees the bible as quite bizarre - but can accept people believing in it as long as they don't act on it)

[Chidori]

Right up to the point where their beliefs adversely or detrimentally effect others.
Spot on!

[Tigers!]

Right up to the point where their beliefs adversely or detrimentally effect others.
Unfortunately this doesn't help us much.
Who decides whether the effect is adverse or detrimental, the affector or the effected? A third party perhaps?
To use an extreme example. Declare a certain group of peole as non-human (thinking of the Nazis) then you can do what you wish to them with fear or favour.

[Jobar]

Within one's own mind, I think we have complete freedom. We can imagine whatever we want, be that ever so nonsensical to anyone else. We on this board often self-identify as freethinkers, and as long as what we believe doesn't impinge on others in ways they find objectionable, I'll not bitch about it. As Koy says.

Truth, though, implies not just subjectivity, but intersubjectivity or objectivity. Rights, and all legal entities of that sort, are intersubjective or objective matters; if you try to impose your particular truth-beliefs on others, that's the point where the rights of others should protect them from your beliefs.

[reddhedd]

Jobar,
That's what I was going to say! (only without the 25¢ words!)

Beliefs are free; within your skull you may do as you wish, no matter how aberrent or abhorrent that belief may be to others. It's the action that comes under scrutiny by society, and rightly so, as it is society that has to deal with the actions.

Maps, I hope you feel better soon.

redd

[Brother Daniel]

I feel that people have the right to believe anything. Absolutely anything. No exceptions.

Among other things, that means that you have (in my view) the right to believe that some beliefs ought to be opposed. But I would opine (being allowed, after all!) that such opposition should be limited, in form, to debate. If your opposition to a harmful belief takes the form of "Thou shalt not believe X" -- in other words, if you consider people not to have the "right" to believe X -- then you will end up doing more harm than good. Opposition of this form can only be effective within an environment that is heavily influenced (if not controlled outright) by a belief system that is permeated by violence against thought. And we don't want to go there.

Christianity attaches moral values to beliefs: To agree with the system is morally "good", to disagree is morally "bad". This attitude entails violence against thought itself. Islam is just as bad (or worse, in that the threat of literal (physical) violence is one of the commonly-used mental weapons). But what happens when you try to suppress Christianity and Islam, to take away people's "right" to believe in them? You get horrors like Leninism and Maoism.

No, it's better to leave our "right to believe" wide open. If you oppose someone's "right" to believe something, either you are engaged in a futile waste of energy, or you are turning yourself into the enemy.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Tigers!: Who decides whether the effect is adverse or detrimental, the affector or the effected?

The effected, of course. Just as with any civil complaint.

MORE: To use an extreme example. Declare a certain group of peole as non-human (thinking of the Nazis) then you can do what you wish to them with fear or favour.

And the effected are the victims and the Nazis ultimately get the shit kicked out of them as a result of their (violent) imposition of their beliefs onto others.

:huh:

[Thor Q. Mada]

As long as the believers, and I dont care in what, don't involve themselves in my life, or don't start telling me how to live my life, I basically don't give a sh....t.
Unfortunately this is theory only, because in this world they do involve themselves into my life in an increasingly obtrusive manner.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Rights are what people believe they are, thus the question admits of paradox.

[Biff the unclean]

Unfortunately this doesn't help us much.
Who decides whether the effect is adverse or detrimental, the affector or the effected? A third party perhaps?

I think of it like smoking. If the person is self destructive enough, stupid enough, to suck that foul smelling carcinogenetic soot into themselves then fine.
However once they exhale then they involve me against my will and involving me is not within their rights.
Same goes with religion. I have no trouble with it so long as religionists hold their breath


To use an extreme example. Declare a certain group of peole as non-human (thinking of the Nazis) then you can do what you wish to them with fear or favour.
That’s right. Like the Christians the Nazis imposed their ideology on innocent bystanders and they should not have had the “right” to do so.

[TaO!]

I think it's important to examine beliefs regardless of whether or not it's detrimental to other people. I think being able to justify what you believe, no matter what it is, is important. If I held some really stupid beliefs, I'd want someone to slap me round a bit and tell me I'm an idiot provided they can tell me why.

Now, if someone had only done this for this guy (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1996710.html), I think he'd be a bit better off.

[Tigers!]

I think of it like smoking. If the person is self destructive enough, stupid enough, to suck that foul smelling carcinogenetic soot into themselves then fine.
However once they exhale then they involve me against my will and involving me is not within their rights.
Same goes with religion. I have no trouble with it so long as religionists hold their breath



That’s right. Like the Christians the Nazis imposed their ideology on innocent bystanders and they should not have had the “right” to do so.
I know, I know. Atheists never impose their beliefs on others do they? I guess Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were just unfortunate aberrations.

[Styrofoamdeity]

Having a "right" to do something is a very different thing from whether that action is beneficial to society or not. We should not encourage people to be religious, since being religious has a negative effect on society as a whole. For example, having a scientifically educated population is certainly a good thing, but a scientifically literate society is probably completely incompatible with a religious one. Many religions also suppress women's rights while studies confirm that sexual equality is directly related to a society's rise from poverty.

While people have the legal right to believe that the world is 6,000 years old or that women should not be allowed to work or drive, these beliefs can hardly be good for society, so must be fought against.

[Vitalstatistix]

Yeah, sorry if my OP is less than clear. I'm slightly ill, and the pounding in my head, is not conducive to my clarity, or spelling.

I guess, I'd like to know what problems you have with my sort of pragmatism.Hmm people seem to be working with the other definition, I suppose because it's easier.

Well to answer it, I think you'd have to say what you mean more precisely. If you mean theories should be tested in order to acquire meaning, then I'd agree. Except for formal systems like math, of course. If you're talking more relativism, as in there are no absolute truths & everything is relative to some frame of reference, then I'd disagree. I took the 2nd meaning from your post the first time through.

[dug_down_deep]

I think of it like smoking. If the person is self destructive enough, stupid enough, to suck that foul smelling carcinogenetic soot into themselves then fine.
However once they exhale then they involve me against my will and involving me is not within their rights.
I feel the same way about your car exhaust, but you're not likely to stop driving in my vicinity, are you?

Concerning the OP... Everyone should have the legal right to believe and speak whatever they like. When they act on those beliefs, they should follow all the same rules the rest of us are supposed to.

[Biff the unclean]

I know, I know. Atheists never impose their beliefs on others do they? I guess Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were just unfortunate aberrations.
Atheists don't have religious beliefs. That's why they are called a-theist.
That so many Christians, such as yourself, can't comprehend any seperation between politics and religion is scary as hell.

[Mickie]

Right up to the point where they insist I believe the same thing they do and work to have laws enacted to enforce their dogma.

[purple_kathryn]

YOu have the right to believe whatever you damn well like and I have the right to disagree with you.

You do not have the right to force the practices of your belief onto me.

[Vitalstatistix]

I know, I know. Atheists never impose their beliefs on others do they? I guess Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were just unfortunate aberrations.ok for the last fucking time

Atheism is not a belief. You are, I assume, an atheist with respect to Zeus. Well so was hitler. So should we say non zeus believers are more likely to kill jews?

Those are not examples of what happens when people become too critical of unjustified beliefs; on the contrary, they are examples of not thinking critically enough about specific non-religiously affiliated ideologies.

Some religious ideologies have perpetrated atrocities. You can't level the same accusation to non-religious ideologies in general unless you're saying they all have one common factor -that there's no morality without god. This is, in fact, a variation on that tired old argument, with some logical fallacies thrown in for good measure.

[angela2]

Right up to the point where they insist I believe the same thing they do and work to have laws enacted to enforce their dogma.
I agree. I would fight any legislation that impinged on another's belief. But maybe we should make a distinction of belief and practice. If someone believed that they should practice child sacrifice and did actually attempt to put that belief into practice, we'd want them locked up.

[BioBeing]

If an adult has the right to belief anything they want (as I think they should have), do they also have the right to indoctrinate their children into believing the same thing? Most of us would probably argue that the Heaven's Gate parents did not have the right to make their children drink the poisoned Kool aid, although those parents obviously thought they did have the right. Our courts say that parent's religious convictions cannot stop a minor from getting medical attention. But does a parent have the right to send their child to a "Jesus Camp (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=179925)"? To Sunday School? Where do the rights of a parent stop and those of the minor begin?

[His Noodly Appendage]

FFS, people. Think about it.

Rights are a subjective belief. This argument is thus circular and incoherent.

[Autonemesis]

I do not care what people believe, and I don't think it's anybody else's business what others believe. A society that respects democratic rights will have nothing in its constitution or laws about belief. It will only address actions.

It is impossible to regulate belief, anyway. No one can read minds, so our only way to "tell" what someone else believes, is by what they tell us about their beliefs. If certain beliefs are crimes, then who is going to be truthful about their beliefs? No one.

So as a society, we should only be concerened about actions. If your beliefs motivate you to incite violence then we should prosecute you for the incitement, not for the beliefs that motivated the incitement. Those might have relevance in determining your sanity, and they are certainly useful in figuring your motivation. But having "bad thoughts" should never be a crime in and of itself. Only "bad deeds" should be crimes, whatever the motivation.

[Autonemesis]

I know, I know. Atheists never impose their beliefs on others do they? I guess Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were just unfortunate aberrations.

There's no guessing needed. If geneocidal atheist dictators were commonplace, you could cite more examples than just those same four over and over again. Clearly they were unfortunate aberrations.

[Vitalstatistix]

FFS, people. Think about it.

Rights are a subjective belief. This argument is thus circular and incoherent.They are more like social constructs. Not exactly objective or subjective. Everyone agrees to behave as if it exists ergo it does, mostly.

I hardly ever get to use that word

Anyway for the sake of peace & harmony & all, it's probably better to let them have their toys.

[Tigers!]

There's no guessing needed. If geneocidal atheist dictators were commonplace, you could cite more examples than just those same four over and over again. Clearly they were unfortunate aberrations.
Those unfortunate aberrations killed millions of people.
Atheism has only been in a position to become state policy in the last 150 years or so. In another 200 years I have no doubt that our great, great, great-grandchildren will be discussing other geneocidal atheist dictators.

[Tigers!]

Some religious ideologies have perpetrated atrocities. You can't level the same accusation to non-religious ideologies in general unless you're saying they all have one common factor -that there's no morality without god. This is, in fact, a variation on that tired old argument, with some logical fallacies thrown in for good measure.
Nice attempt to dodge the issue.
Religious people are responsible for any and all atrocities comitted in the name of their faith. But the same doesn't apply to atheism.
And you wonder why I don't take that attitude seriously.
If people who endorse atheism committ atrocities then they are just as responsible and liable as religious people and that means that their belief system must be held accountable.

[Tigers!]

But does a parent have the right to send their child to a "Jesus Camp (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=179925)"? To Sunday School? Where do the rights of a parent stop and those of the minor begin?
The parent who doesn't send their child to Sunday School has just the same rights as the parent who does send their child to Sunday School.
You're worried about Jesus Camp. I worry about Camp Inquiry (or rather any Australian equivalent).
I respect your right not to send your child to Sunday School. Please respect the same for me.

[AthenaAwakened]

I think you have a right to believe what you want, but that a right to believe doesn't make what you believe right.

A 6 year old may believe that 2+2=5, but her belief doesn't her right.

A plantation owner in 1834 may have believed the 13 year old girl who cleaned his parlor was his property, but that belief didn't make her rape right.

I think sometimes we think that simply because we believe a thing, that belief gives it legitimacy. That simply because others believe a thing, we think that we have to give their pronouncements more weight than we know we should.

I think we should all keep in mind that a right to believe does not make a belief righteous.

Peace

[Tigers!]

There's no guessing needed. If geneocidal atheist dictators were commonplace, you could cite more examples than just those same four over and over again. Clearly they were unfortunate aberrations.
Autonemesis
I salute your candour. You are the 1st atheist (from the tenor of your other posts I am assuming such) I have ever come across that is prepared to use the word atheist in between the words geneocidal & dictators.
Well done:wave:

[Brother Daniel]

Religious people are responsible for any and all atrocities comitted in the name of their faith. But the same doesn't apply to atheism.
Straw man. No one said that Mao was not responsible for any of his atrocities. Ditto Stalin. Etc.

And "in the name of" is rather vague.

If people who endorse atheism commit atrocities then they are just as responsible and liable as religious people...
No one said otherwise.

...and that means that their belief system must be held accountable.
So you and I should both repent of the horrible belief systems we share with Stalin and Mao and Hitler, such as non-Blavatskyism. Or non-Jainism. Or non-Mormonism. Or non-Sufism. Or non-Bahaiism. Or non-ultra-orthodox-Judaism. Or our lack of adherence to the "Boston Movement" (Church of Christ offshoot). Or our lack of regard for the deities traditionally worshipped by the Khoi people of Namibia. Or ... the list goes on.

Shall we take the plunge together?

In case you have missed the point, the examples I just gave are all defined negatively. They are not belief systems at all. When you can see the difference between a belief system and the lack of a belief system, you'll start to make progress.

So ... yes, you can probably make an argument against Communism, based on the behaviour of Stalin and Mao*. But to sweep together everyone who lacks a belief system involving something called "God", with no regard for the way we differ among ourselves, is just silly (in this context).

I'm not a Communist, so my "belief system", if I have one, isn't tainted by the legacy of Stalin. Let the Communists worry about the degree to which they have to wear that legacy.

---
*Footnote: Suppose we did make such an argument. I can easily picture a Communist apologist showing up and arguing that Stalin and Mao don't represent "real" Communism, and that their bad behaviour must be accounted for in some other way. Our hypothetical Communist apologist might even be able to make a good argument, perhaps. But if he/she wanted to act like some of the Islamic apologists that are currently active here, he/she would fail to see the ad hoc nature of his/her method for separating the "real" characteristics of Communism from the "incidental" characteristics of some of the people who happen to be Communists. Our failure to accept this self-serving methodology would be mistaken for "ignorance" of what Communism is really all about. He/she would repeatedly sneer at our "ignorance", liberally peppering his/her "arguments" with such strokes of brilliance as "LOL" and "LMAO".... :rolleyes:

[BioBeing]

The parent who doesn't send their child to Sunday School has just the same rights as the parent who does send their child to Sunday School.
You're worried about Jesus Camp. I worry about Camp Inquiry (or rather any Australian equivalent).
I respect your right not to send your child to Sunday School. Please respect the same for me.
I don't think you read the Jesus Camp thread. It is a fundamentalist Christian terrorist training camp. Not quite the same as Camp Inquiry.

But why should I respect your right to brainwash and indoctrinate your child into a cult? [Not saying I necessarily believe that that is a correct description of Sunday School - but it is one possible one, and there are some Sunday Schools/Churches that seem more that way than others.]

[Clete]

Most of us would probably argue that the Heaven's Gate parents did not have the right to make their children drink the poisoned Kool aid, although those parents obviously thought they did have the right.
The whole parents giving their kids poisoned Kool-Aid wasn't Heaven's Gate, it was The Peoples Temple (Jonestown). As far as I know all of the Heaven's Gate suicides were adults—and they didn't used poisoned Kool-Aid.

I do agree with your point though. I think there's a time when practicing ones religion can cross the line into child abuse, such as fundamentalist Mormons marrying off their twelve year old daughters.

[BioBeing]

The whole parents giving their kids poisoned Kool-Aid wasn't Heaven's Gate, it was The Peoples Temple (Jonestown). As far as I know all of the Heaven's Gate suicides were adults—and they didn't used poisoned Kool-Aid.
Thanks for the correction - I get confused! Sorry if I offended any Heaven's Gate people...

[windsofchange]

Autonemesis
I salute your candour. You are the 1st atheist (from the tenor of your other posts I am assuming such) I have ever come across that is prepared to use the word atheist in between the words geneocidal & dictators.
Well done:wave:

Tigers, I guarantee you that if a "genocidal atheist dictator" came into power here in the U.S. and started knocking off religious people, there would be plenty of atheists fighting to stop him.

Not all atheists hate theists, any more than all theists hate atheists. There are good and decent people of every and no belief.

[Vitalstatistix]

Nice attempt to dodge the issue.
Religious people are responsible for any and all atrocities comitted in the name of their faith. But the same doesn't apply to atheism.
And you wonder why I don't take that attitude seriously.
If people who endorse atheism committ atrocities then they are just as responsible and liable as religious people and that means that their belief system must be held accountable.Did you even read the goddamn post? Can you actually address it instead of just repeating your points? Did my first paragraph make any sense to you?

[RyMantys]

Right up to the point where they insist I believe the same thing they do and work to have laws enacted to enforce their dogma.

Yeah, I hear you, but doesn't that apply to all laws? They may not be made to enforce "dogma" as such, but they represent a certain view of the world as it should be, which may not be the same view as yours or mine.

[Plognark]

Autonemesis
I salute your candour. You are the 1st atheist (from the tenor of your other posts I am assuming such) I have ever come across that is prepared to use the word atheist in between the words geneocidal & dictators.
Well done:wave:


So did any of them cite atheism as their motivation for doing what they did?

What tenet of atheism inspired them to oppress their peoples?

[Plognark]

Did you even read the goddamn post? Can you actually address it instead of just repeating your points? Did my first paragraph make any sense to you?

Probably not.

They always seem to miss the point that religious attrocites are usually commited in the name of whatever make belief subjective interpretation of god suits them.

Replace "god" with nationalism or whatever specific political ideology they followed and you can explain all four of the incorrectly attributed scumbags that Tigers! and others bring up all the time.

None of them did what they did in the name of atheism, but rather in the name of some extremist ideology. It doesn't matter if it's god, communism, or their own power hungry dictatorship.

It's kind of like saying Hitler killed Jews because he liked to paint when he was younger. It's a total non-sequitur.

[DNAinaGoodway]

A 'right to believe' ???

People will believe what they choose to believe, wether they have a 'right to' or not.

Even if oppression makes them keep their belief secret, they will still believe what they choose.

[Clete]

Sorry if I offended any Heaven's Gate people...

:funny:

[Keturah]

Right up to the point where their beliefs adversely or detrimentally effect others.

I agree. I think people can believe whatever they want to so long as it doesn't hurt me or others.

[Tigers!]

Tigers, I guarantee you that if a "genocidal atheist dictator" came into power here in the U.S. and started knocking off religious people, there would be plenty of atheists fighting to stop him.

No doubt they would since the genocidal atheist dictator would also be killing atheists as well.

[Tigers!]

Atheists don't have religious beliefs. That's why they are called a-theist.
That so many Christians, such as yourself, can't comprehend any seperation between politics and religion is scary as hell.
I know that atheists don't have religious beliefs but they do have beliefs and it is the belief systems, regardless of whether or not they have gods in them, that need to be held up for scruntity.

Regardling the separation of politics and religion, how I wish it were true. But the politicians are constantly trying to tell the church how it should behave, yet get upset when they get return fire.
If separation of politics and religion means that a church cannot run the state the converse is also true, that the state cannot run a church. So if a church chooses to have certain rules then the state should mind it's own business.

[Tigers!]

So did any of them cite atheism as their motivation for doing what they did?

What tenet of atheism inspired them to oppress their peoples?

If you believe in a form of determinism and materialism (which all atheists that I have ever met follow in one form or another) this can mean that people are merely meat machines and that society can be treated as a form of machine. It society or it's components (i.e. the people therein) are considerd broken then they need to be fixed. That fixing can take extreme forms at times.

It's always been the cop out of atheists.
If religious people do bad things then it is their religious belief that made them do it but if a non-religious person (read atheist if you wish) does something bad it wasn't their atheism that made them do it. It's always something else - nationalism, poor toilet training, domineering mother figure etc:
What a shame that religious people aren't allowed to use such excuses.

[Biff the unclean]

I know that atheists don't have religious beliefs but they do have beliefs and it is the belief systems, regardless of whether or not they have gods in them, that need to be held up for scruntity.
This sounds like an admission that you have been bullshitting us.
You mention mass murdering dictators and make a point of saying that they were Atheists instead of the ideology that they held which was the source of their acts.

Regardling the separation of politics and religion, how I wish it were true. But the politicians are constantly trying to tell the church how it should behave, yet get upset when they get return fire.

I must admit ignorance. I’ve never heard of a present day American politician attempting to dictate church actions. Can you tell us who they are and what they are doing?

[Tigers!]

This sounds like an admission that you have been bullshitting us.
You mention mass murdering dictators and make a point of saying that they were Atheists instead of the ideology that they held which was the source of their acts.
Not all of them (the dictators) were atheists. The ideology of atheists is atheism while the ideology of christians is christianity (in one form or another).

[Tigers!]

I must admit ignorance. I’ve never heard of a present day American politician attempting to dictate church actions. Can you tell us who they are and what they are doing?
Being an Aussie my view of the American scene is necessarily limited but here is one I found.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp

[BruceWane]

Being an Aussie my view of the American scene is necessarily limited but here is one I found.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp

Hmmm.

There is no doctrine in catholicism (or christianity in general) that requires churches to provide adoption services. Providing adoption services is not a religious practice. This is obvious; the church demonstrates this fact by willingly refraining from providing the service.

So politicians are "telling churches how to behave" by requiring them to abide by the law when engaging in non-religious activities?

Should church buses be allowed to ignore traffic laws as well?

You stated that politicians are "constantly" telling churches how to behave.

It's kinda strange that you could only come up with one example that is at best marginal. Realistically, your example is completely invalid.

[BruceWane]

IfIt's always been the cop out of atheists.
If religious people do bad things then it is their religious belief that made them do it but if a non-religious person (read atheist if you wish) does something bad it wasn't their atheism that made them do it. It's always something else - nationalism, poor toilet training, domineering mother figure etc:
What a shame that religious people aren't allowed to use such excuses.

Well, unfortunately most of the religious despots have been quite outspoken about their religious justifications for their actions.

[BruceWane]

I know, I know. Atheists never impose their beliefs on others do they? I guess Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were just unfortunate aberrations.

I was under the impression that those guys killed to vanquish opposition and strengthen either their preferred political ideaology and/or their personal power.




No doubt they would since the genocidal atheist dictator would also be killing atheists as well.

But....but.....but......why would someone killing in the name of atheism be killing fellow atheists?

Could it be because all your previous examples of "atheistic dictators" did not kill in the name of atheism, but did so for other causes?

</sarcasm>

I think this statement makes it pretty clear that Tigers! knows damn well that his "murderous atheistic dictators" litany is pure strawman bullshit.

[Brother Daniel]

If you believe in a form of determinism and materialism (which all atheists that I have ever met follow in one form or another) this can mean that people are merely meat machines...
That people are machines, in a sense, is obvious -- and universally recognised. The study of medicine is based on that premise: There are predictable cause-and-effect relationships between what you do to a person and the effect that that treatment will have on a person. For a simple example (not medically useful): If you sever my head from the rest of my body, you can be pretty sure that I will die quickly, perhaps even before you finish the job.

But when you use the phrase "merely meat machines", you appear to be suggesting that our lives are all meaningless and pointless. Some atheists may indeed believe that, but it does not follow from atheism, nor is it a typical belief of atheists. Rather, it is a typically Christian view, unsupported by any evidence, of what an atheist life must be like.
...and that society can be treated as a form of machine.
Yes, policies set by governments can make a difference in people's lives, sometimes in a predictable way. This is also universally recognised. Christians and Muslims frequently make arguments of the form, "If we allow ____ in this country, then _____ will happen to it." Or "______ happened to us because we allowed _____."
It society or it's components (i.e. the people therein) are considerd broken then they need to be fixed.
Yes, most of us, whether atheist or theist, would like to make the world a better place. I'm surprised that you consider this a problem.
That fixing can take extreme forms at times.
Humans are fallible, whether we are atheist or theist. Sometimes we make mistakes in identifying which course of action will help things.

Note the context: Plognark asked you what tenet of atheism might have inspired Stalin (or some other atheist dictator) to oppress his people. And in response, you failed to identify any substantial difference between atheists and theists.

Naturally, we're all curious about what makes people do the things they do. Especially the people we all love to hate (such as genocidal dictators). So how, rationally, can we explore the causality between their behaviour and their beliefs?

We can try to be properly scientific about it. This means controlled experimentation, or at least the gathering of data from a variety of situations that collectively approach the characteristics of a controlled experiment.

One problem is that it's practically impossible to identify all the relevant variables. Imagine someone who is "just like Stalin except that he's Christian" -- having all other variables fixed, but with this one small difference so that we can observe the effects of being Christian versus being atheist (or whatever). It's impossible to find such a person. I don't believe we can even conceive of such a person -- that we could even reach agreement on what such a person would be, from that description.

No, a comparitive-experimental approach cannot get us anywhere in determining how a given individual's beliefs affected his behaviour.

(We can talk about large numbers of people, however. We can use statistics in order to "wash out" all the other variables. For example, we might try to compare the habits of the million Australian atheists the the habits of the 15 million Australian Christians. (I don't know the actual numbers.) And when such statistical studies (of people with different sets of religious beliefs, but with similar cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds) are performed, they do not (AFAIK) show atheists to be any worse than anyone else. But I'm well off on a tangent.)

Where does that leave us? We might examine the words used by the person in question. If person X kills a million people, what is his publicly stated motivation? Or what are his privately-stated motivations, according to his erstwhile friends who end up testifying against him at his trial? How would those who have studied his life, with the intent of trying to understand him, explain his actions?

Such an approach isn't perfect. (Even aside from the possibility of lying, people do not always identify their own motivations correctly. And the interpretation of the evidence is highly susceptible to bias.) But it can give us some pretty good clues. At the very least, the words of a mass murderer (that relate to his actions) give a prima facie case for the way in which his beliefs caused his actions.

For example: On the face of it, the Crusades were motivated by the Christian beliefs of the perpetrators. It certainly looks that way from the content of the sermons that stirred European warriors to embark on these dangerous expeditions. Now perhaps you can make a sophisticated argument to the contrary, by saying (for example) that it was all about nationalism (ha!) or all about money (maybe, for some of the later ones) or whatever, and that Christianity just served as a convenient banner to follow. Whatever. But the "obvious" explanation for the Crusades, whether correct or not, is that they were motivated by Christian beliefs; and those who want to argue otherwise (whether correctly or not) have their work cut out for them.

There is no analogous "obvious" way of explaining Stalin's crimes with respect to his atheism (whether correctly or incorrectly). None. Zip. Nada. There is nothing in Stalin's words to indicate that anything he did was to promote atheism, or that it was in obedience to the tenets of atheism (if there were such a thing!), or even that he was responding to a threat faced by atheism.

(No, I haven't combed through all the words of Stalin. But if such evidence existed, it would be hard to account for the fact that the relevant quotations are not in common circulation -- given the frequency with which theists try to use Stalin as ammunition against atheists.)

The mere fact that Stalin was an atheist does not count as an explanation for his crimes, any more than the mere fact that he had a big, thick mustache. You can probably find many other incidental differences between Stalin and [name your favourite politician]. Maybe Stalin liked hunting. Maybe Stalin didn't like listening to jazz. Woop de doo.

So why do Christians (etc.) keep trying to pretend that Stalin's atheism was the cause of his crimes -- without ever providing even the beginnings of an argument to support the assertion?

Bigotry against atheists. Plain and simple.

If religious people do bad things then it is their religious belief that made them do it but if a non-religious person (read atheist if you wish) does something bad it wasn't their atheism that made them do it. It's always something else - nationalism, poor toilet training, domineering mother figure etc:
What a shame that religious people aren't allowed to use such excuses.
To the contrary. Religious people can use those excuses as much as anyone else. When a religious person does something bad, I do not assume, in general, that the bad act was motivated by the religious beliefs. But when the crime is specifically directed against people of a different religion, that nudges me toward such a suspicion. And when the crime is specifically directed against people who are regularly dehumanised in the preaching of that religion, that nudges me toward such a suspicion.

More importantly, when the criminal in question has explicitly linked his religious beliefs to his crimes, in his own words, then it is natural to assume that he is telling the truth. According to this criterion, there are many mass murders that appear to have been motivated by Christian beliefs, many that appear to have been motivated by Islamic beliefs, and (I think) even some that appear to have been motivated by Jewish beliefs.

You may be able to give an example of a mass murder that appears (by this same criterion) to have been motivated by belief in some specific ideology that happens to be atheistic, such as Communism. But I challenge you to identify a belief that is held by most atheists, and to provide a single example of a mass murder that appears (by the criterion already described) to have been motivated by that belief.

[Alethias]

Not all of them (the dictators) were atheists. The ideology of atheists is atheism while the ideology of christians is christianity (in one form or another).That's an extremely broad brush. Here is a non-exhaustive list of some atheistic ideologies:

christian atheism
secular humanism
metaphysical naturalism
communism
objectivism
atheistic buddhism
There is very little in common between some of these ideologies other than a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Why is it that you seem to refuse to acknowledge that there is not a unified atheist ideology?

Many atheists on this board have similar ideas or beliefs. The reason for that has nothing to do with atheism in general and lots to do with the fact that one of the main goals of this website is the promotion of a specific atheistic ideology, Metaphysical Naturalism. If you were posting on an Objectivist board, you'd see radically different results, and you'd probably get points of view that would be polar opposites to that on a Communist board.

You have a right to be a christian, and I have a right to be a Humanistic Naturalist. If your christianity inspires you to actions that impinge on my rights or the rights of someone else, it is reasonable and proper for you to face consequences for those actions. The same, of course, applies to me.

Alethias

[AthenaAwakened]

Not all of them (the dictators) were atheists. The ideology of atheists is atheism while the ideology of christians is christianity (in one form or another).

I think I will buy the argument of atheism as ideology when I read where someone burns a giant wooden atom on someone's lawn.

Peace

[JamesBannon]

If you believe in a form of determinism and materialism (which all atheists that I have ever met follow in one form or another) this can mean that people are merely meat machines and that society can be treated as a form of machine. It society or it's components (i.e. the people therein) are considerd broken then they need to be fixed. That fixing can take extreme forms at times.

You haven't met many atheists then. Here's one that warns against carrying materialistic determinism and mechanistic explanations too far when applied to ethical or social questions generally and to the emergence of, especially, self-consciousness. Mechanistic models can be useful at times for explaining simple behaviours but when explaining more complex forms of behaviours they are generally extremely bad predictors.

[Autonemesis]

Those unfortunate aberrations killed millions of people.

You are repeating yourself. You already told us it was millions, repeating that for emphasis changes nothing. You can only cite four aberrations.

Atheism has only been in a position to become state policy in the last 150 years or so. In another 200 years I have no doubt that our great, great, great-grandchildren will be discussing other geneocidal atheist dictators.

Not being able to cite more than four, he reaches hopefully into the future for more examples. :rolleyes: Why does it please you to think that that your g-g-g-g-children will say that?

[Autonemesis]

Autonemesis
I salute your candour. You are the 1st atheist (from the tenor of your other posts I am assuming such) I have ever come across that is prepared to use the word atheist in between the words geneocidal & dictators.
Well done:wave:

I granted you that for the sake of argument. You can still only cite four aberrations. I don't have to agree that those guys were geneocidal dictators on account of atheism to note that you have only cited four.

Whatever they were, they were aberrations. Most people, most leaders - whatever they call themselves, whatever they are called by others - do not behave as they did, or condone what they did. Genocidal dictators are always an aberration.

So recall your salute, I am not on your side in this.

[Autonemesis]

No doubt they would since the genocidal atheist dictator would also be killing atheists as well.

Please restrain your glee. kthxbye

[RPS]

I granted you that for the sake of argument. You can still only cite four aberrations.How many officially atheist governments (beginning with the fall of the Bastille, I assume) did not make it a practice to murder their citizens?

[AthenaAwakened]

How many officially atheist governments (beginning with the fall of the Bastille, I assume) did not make it a practice to murder their citizens?

Are you saying that something inherent in atheism leads to murderous gov'ts? Not political ideology, not twisted minds in power, but atheism itself makes nation states genocidal toward their own citizenry?

[RPS]

Are you saying that something inherent in atheism leads to murderous gov'ts? Not political ideology, not twisted minds in power, but atheism itself makes nation states genocidal toward their own citizenry?I am merely asking a question. You claimed "aberration!" I asked the question to help evaluation your claim. Will you answer it?

[AthenaAwakened]

I am merely asking a question. You claimed "aberration!" I asked the question to help evaluation your claim. Will you answer it?

Where did I say that?

[TNorthover]

How many officially atheist governments (beginning with the fall of the Bastille, I assume) did not make it a practice to murder their citizens?

What do you count as officially atheist? Going much beyond the many secular states around today would put you in the realm of suppressing other religions and hence of a nasty government to begin with. Once you've got that far I wouldn't be surprised if it went on to kill its citizens, regardless of its original ideology.

[geddit?]

What do you count as officially atheist? Going much beyond the many secular states around today would put you in the realm of suppressing other religions and hence of a nasty government to begin with. Once you've got that far I wouldn't be surprised if it went on to kill its citizens, regardless of its original ideology.

Agreed. I think atheism was adopted by these madmen in order to eliminate the competition. In the aforementioned cases the competition was religion, (G)od being in the way of state as god. A marriage of convenience?

[RPS]

Where did I say that?My apologies. But I was merely asking a question.

What do you count as officially atheist?Governments that take an official stand for atheism. For example, communist governments count due to their commitment to "scientific materialism" and based on Marx's famous statement that communism begins with atheism.

[geddit?]

Governments that take an official stand for atheism. For example, communist governments count due to their commitment to "scientific materialism" and based on Marx's famous statement that communism begins with atheism.

When an ideology irrefutably elevates the state above all else, it seems to me they would need to get rid of theism first. A marriage of convenience?

[RPS]

When an ideology irrefutably elevates the state above all else, it seems to me they would need to get rid of theism first. A marriage of conveniece?It's possible I suppose, but I've seen no reason to doubt Marx's sincere atheism, or even Stalin's for that matter. Besides, one needn't eliminate the religious to accomplish the same purpose. Like Hitler, one could co-opt it.

[geddit?]

It's possible I suppose, but I've seen no reason to doubt Marx's sincere atheism, or even Stalin's for that matter. Besides, one needn't eliminate the religious to accomplish the same purpose. Like Hitler, one could co-opt it.

A car is a necessary component in a car crash. In this case blame is being placed on a spark plug. How often is that the real reason?