The Moral Need for the End of Religion

[Civil1z@tion]

First, to be clear, I am not advocating any sort of government action to curtail, limit, or eradicate religion. If religion is to end it must do so solely from cultural and societal abandonment of it. Now, on to the argument.

From a moral standpoint, in my opinion, religion is totally insufficient. This is because religion does not have humans do what is right because right has intrinsic value, but because of a system of punishments and rewards. Essentially, religious morality is, at its base, selfish. To be fair, the idea of enlightened self-interest falls into this category as well. People should not seek to help their fellow human because they can get some reward or avoid some punishment, but because it is intrinsically good to do so. The idea that we need this metaphysical punishment/reward system holds us back from achieving that.

Now here's the question, what should we consider intrinsically good and intrinsically worth doing? In my opinion, promoting human life and happiness should be that which is intrinsically good and worth doing. This leads to a second problem with religion, religion places intrinsic worth on an unprovable god(s) above that of the worth of human beings. This leads to things like Jihads and Inquisitions to purge other humans to please God. However, if we put intrinsic value on human and human happiness rather than god(s) and its (their) happiness, then we can achieve a working moral system that doesn't give us occasional spouts of homicidal insanity to please the whims of an imaginary creature.

Thus the moral goal of humankind should be to do good without compulsion. To help their fellow man regardless of what some say their big sky daddy/mommy wants. When people ask "why should I help my fellow human?" the answer should not be "to avoid hell/bad reincarnation in your next life/god's displeasure/to get into heaven/out of enlightened self interest." The answer should be "because helping your fellow man is intrinsically good."

[Sabine Grant]

I agree with the majority of your statements except that I must "beg" for a definition (or at least your perception) of the meaning of this :

"because helping your fellow man is intrinsically good."

Behind "helping" could hide a very misguided intention to do "good" while resulting in a mess. "good" remains somewhat subjective and relative to the situation itself.

What religion attempts to do is to define what is "good" and how "helping" ought to be done in various circumstances. Where religion is misguided is that it has placed both into a narrow box with the seal of approval of an alleged deity.

Personally, I am rather tolerant of what/which beliefs animate/inspire/motivate any of my fellow human beings into "helping their fellow human beings". As long as they respond to needy folks and make a productive difference in their lives. Thus I certainly would not suggest that spiritual crutches are not acceptable if they result in such motivation. Thus I do not expand my personal energy into dissuading a religious individual from relying on their deity concept to experience and exercise compassion and empathy.

[KyleFromDenver]

Even genuine empathy can have a selfish element. Not that this is a bad thing. Just that I see empathy as "That could very well be me in that person's shoes someday, so how would I want someone else to react?".

[Illusio]

Personally, I am rather tolerant of what/which beliefs animate/inspire/motivate any of my fellow human beings into "helping their fellow human beings". As long as they respond to needy folks and make a productive difference in their lives. Thus I certainly would not suggest that spiritual crutches are not acceptable if they result in such motivation. Thus I do not expand my personal energy into dissuading a religious individual from relying on their deity concept to experience and exercise compassion and empathy.

Although I agree with this in principle, the sad fact of the matter is that the popular delusions are of a kind where they can equally well support genocide and "violent intolerance" as helping fellow human beings.

Basing your morals on divine revelation by definition has removed your moral and practical judgements away from considering what is good for mankind - this is inheritly bad. Religious worldviews can, and must have some overlap with human interests to make the religion grow, but as we can see pretty clearly from various fundamentalist religions - people are more than willing to please their gods by denying their intellect, performing acts of violence against other humans and regularly subject themselves to looking like idiots performing useless ritual magic like prayer and fasting.

Sam Harris argued at the end of faith that there may come a time where we no longer have a choice and will be forced to erradicate toxic religions because they are hell bent on destroying/subjugating infidels. The image he used was an Islamist with a nuke in the middle east I believe, but the trigger could equally well be a fundie christian wanting to bring about armageddon by nuclear fire in Israel.

Unless we want to keep on truckin' until that becomes a reality - these people need to be undermined, regardless of whether they are capable of behaving while not having the upper hand. In my opinion, the best way to do it is by actively undermining religion in general and teaching people good secular worldviews. This will make the true nutcases stand out more and make it easier for them to see how insane their claims really are. In the Islam vs The World conflict it would be immensely beneficial if The World could stand out as a united non-religious block - with civilizations that totally trump the superstition of Islam. In itself, that could be enough to defuse Islam over time - as it would be increasingly obvious to anyone that religion only produces ignorants.

What I'd really like to see is governments laying down some groundrules about what kinds of religious views are acceptable, in the same way that we can act against conspiracies. Specifically, ones that advocate stoning of unruely children, predict imminent appocalypse or fighting nonbelievers until their religion takes over the world do not contribute to improving the world. The "peaceful muslims", "intellectual christians" and "ufo cults" need to either rewrite their holy books to conform with "their correct moderate/peaceful/useful interpretation" and use these modern versions for preaching or they need to accept that the rest of us must view them as dangerous individuals, which may include putting restraints on their right to propagate their ideas/isolate their children from more acceptable ideas.

[exmormon]

Essentially, religious morality is, at its base, selfish.
I don't view that as necessarily a bad thing. Is demanding that others deny themselves their interests better than merely seeking your own? If your own are in conflict with others', then what is the difference anyway? In that case isn't demanding selflessness itself selfish? Some selfish actions cause harm, some don't, just as some selfless actions cause harm, and some don't. Some actions which are selfish are also good for others too, while some are not. As much as one might appreciate the good that can come from someone giving up something they value for the sake of accomplishing something that others value, I hope that the person giving it up feels at least some sense of personal reward, however selfish, or else they are a slave to a moral as much as one might be a slave to a human master, and as much as religious morality makes slaves of people.

Selfish vs. unselfish just doesn't map well onto harmful vs. beneficial. So it makes a poor moral heuristic, not to mention a poor absolute principle. And actually, that is the real problem with religious morality too, in my view. The problem is not the rewards and punishments per se, but the total nondependence of those rewards and punishments on the strategic requirements of individual situations or the values of individual people. Incentives are detached from what actually matters to people -- what could in hopefully many (but obviously not all) situations enable people to do what's best for both themselves and others -- and placed in the context of imagined after-death events. All systems of moral absolutism have a similar problem. There's no moral philosophy that will eliminate dilemmas, trade-offs, or conflicts of interests. Imposing absolute principles, whether based on gods or rules or notions of "intrinsic value", on people is just a cheap and deceptive way of attempting to do that; it's deceptive because it's less honest than saying the equivalent "if everyone could just do things MY way and not have their own conflicting interests, then everything would be peachy".

In my opinion, promoting human life and happiness should be that which is intrinsically good and worth doing.
If it were really intrinsic, you wouldn't have used the word "should." This word masks the fact that this is a personal desire or value judgment on your part, not that this is a bad thing. Indeed my point in this post is to express my own personal desire that there be nothing embarrassing or shameful in having personal values or basing one's morality on them, per se.

This leads to a second problem with religion, religion places intrinsic worth on an unprovable god(s) above that of the worth of human beings.
I agree with this. The worth of human beings, though, is a function of the values and interests of those very human beings. It's not intrinsic.

[Civil1z@tion]

I agree with this. The worth of human beings, though, is a function of the values and interests of those very human beings. It's not intrinsic.

Just to respond to this point quickly, I'd say that humans have both intrinsic and instrumental value. To prove this point, consider this. If a person's value was solely based upon their actions, then new borns, who have had no actions other then birth which is very painful and stressful for the mother and if that action is to be considered it would be negative, would have no value and any action done upon it would be acceptable including killing it. However, if you say that the baby should not be harmed, then you are admitting a value to that baby indenpendent of its past/current and even future actions (as that baby is just as likely to be another Hitler as a Gandhi). This means the baby's life has intrinsic value.

[exmormon]

Just to respond to this point quickly, I'd say that humans have both intrinsic and instrumental value. To prove this point, consider this. If a person's value was solely based upon their actions, then new borns, who have had no actions other then birth which is very painful and stressful for the mother and if that action is to be considered it would be negative, would have no value and any action done upon it would be acceptable including killing it. However, if you say that the baby should not be harmed, then you are admitting a value to that baby indenpendent of its past/current and even future actions (as that baby is just as likely to be another Hitler as a Gandhi). This means the baby's life has intrinsic value.

No, it means it has value in the mind of you and me and everyone else who doesn't want to see that baby killed. If I say it shouldn't be killed, it's because I don't like the thought of it being killed, and recognize that most others don't either. I might think it is more likely to be a Ghandi than a Hitler, but it doesn't even matter if I'm wrong about that. One's reasons for valuing something are a different thing than the fact of the matter about whether one values it or not and how much. If nobody cared if the baby were killed, then, well, nobody would care. Seems tautological to me that it just wouldn't matter. It wouldn't be a moral issue. Something doesn't just have value, period. It has value to someone. How else could the notion of value make sense? There's not a "value particle" that things are made of. It exists in the mind in reference to the thing, not in the thing itself. The thing may have properties, whether intrinsic or not, which people value, but that's not the same as it having intrinsic value. Person A may value it because of those properties, while person B doesn't value it, or values it but for some other reason.

To say something has intrinsic value is to say its value is independent of whether or how much anyone values it or despises it or is indifferent to it. It could have negative value even if everyone in the world thinks its the best thing ever, or it could have positive value even if everyone thinks dying a painful death is better than that thing. This just makes the concept empty of meaning or usefulness, as an immaterial property too inconsequential to even be called magical for its unobservability; even to the limited extent that "intrinsic value" is a useful abstraction, it is only because of stable overlap with what people actually value.

Historically, people have justified belief in God for the sole purpose of restoring meaning to the notion of intrinsic value or something similar. Whether things matter to people is irrelevant to their intrinsic value, but things still have to somehow matter, else why are we doing philosophy, so let's make them matter to God; that will fix everything, just like all appeals to God fix everything. And we're back to values that, as pointed out in the OP as a criticism of religious morality, are orthogonal to human interests. The solution is get past the false dichotomy that if things do not have some sort of objective or intrinsic value, they have no value at all.

[Hamlet]

First, to be clear, I am not advocating any sort of government action to curtail, limit, or eradicate religion. If religion is to end it must do so solely from cultural and societal abandonment of it. Now, on to the argument.

From a moral standpoint, in my opinion, religion is totally insufficient. This is because religion does not have humans do what is right because right has intrinsic value, but because of a system of punishments and rewards. Essentially, religious morality is, at its base, selfish. To be fair, the idea of enlightened self-interest falls into this category as well. People should not seek to help their fellow human because they can get some reward or avoid some punishment, but because it is intrinsically good to do so. The idea that we need this metaphysical punishment/reward system holds us back from achieving that.

Now here's the question, what should we consider intrinsically good and intrinsically worth doing? In my opinion, promoting human life and happiness should be that which is intrinsically good and worth doing. This leads to a second problem with religion, religion places intrinsic worth on an unprovable god(s) above that of the worth of human beings. This leads to things like Jihads and Inquisitions to purge other humans to please God. However, if we put intrinsic value on human and human happiness rather than god(s) and its (their) happiness, then we can achieve a working moral system that doesn't give us occasional spouts of homicidal insanity to please the whims of an imaginary creature.

Thus the moral goal of humankind should be to do good without compulsion. To help their fellow man regardless of what some say their big sky daddy/mommy wants. When people ask "why should I help my fellow human?" the answer should not be "to avoid hell/bad reincarnation in your next life/god's displeasure/to get into heaven/out of enlightened self interest." The answer should be "because helping your fellow man is intrinsically good."

Christianity, for example, says that the good has intrinsic value because it is grounded in the very nature of God. To be good, or to do what's right, is to be in step with reality; the good or the right certainly has intrinsic value in a Christian worldview. I think it's a gross mischaracterization to say that instead of Christians asking themselves, "what is the right thing for me to do here," they ask themselves, "what is the hell-eluding-thing for me to do here."

[exmormon]

I think it's a gross mischaracterization to say that instead of Christians asking themselves, "what is the right thing for me to do here," they ask themselves, "what is the hell-eluding-thing for me to do here."

Then either they don't believe in hell, or it is a case of delayed rewards and punishments not exerting the incentive they ought to exert if their supposed reality were comprehended. If hell is by definition the worst possible fate, then any otherwise sane person who believes in it would rationally do absolutely anything to avoid it, and this ultimate disincentive should rationally be expected to overwhelm any and all other considerations. You seem to be characterizing Christians as people who are having the contents of their wallets demanded at gunpoint, but ignoring the gun in deciding whether to accede to the robber's demand. A better characterization would be to say the robber and gun are believed to be there but are invisible, and won't fire the gun until years later, but can't be escaped.

[whichphilosophy]

What most people don't realize is religion or non-religion is not at fault; it is the actions of people that are. A society without religion will still be prone to the same faults of violence and instead of religious fundamentalism we will have atheist fundamentalism.

We are advanced technically developed sentient beings with the subconscious nature not unlike that of an ape.

We're just not civilized enough for any changes to make a difference

[Hamlet]

The incentive they ought to exert? Well a Christian ought to want heaven (God) and ought not to want hell (absence of God). Desiring to avoid the absence of God (hell) is the same thing as desiring God. And doing the good for goodness sake and doing the good for heavens sake are really the same thing. You can't get the reward without pure motives. C.S. Lewis once said that heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire; it is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are some rewards that do not sully motives.

[exmormon]

The incentive they ought to exert? Well a Christian ought to want heaven (God) and ought not to want hell (absence of God). Desiring to avoid the absence of God (hell) is the same thing as desiring God. And doing the good for goodness sake and doing the good for heavens sake are really the same thing.

I think you've just dissolved the distinction you tried to create in your first post.

Anyway, exactly how and for whom heaven and hell are incentives is beside the point. The point is that religious morality is a function of God's values instead of human values. Actually these are not quite mutually exclusive, of course: God's values are really just a projection of the values of certain priests, busybodies, and control freaks whose useful (to them) but oppressive (to many others) myths and illusions beg to be shattered. In some cases, additionally, they may be a projection of less devious values as well; there are, after all, a few religious people who are neither control freaks themselves nor brainwashed by control freaks.

[exmormon]

instead of religious fundamentalism we will have atheist fundamentalism.

Why? Dilemmas, trade-offs, conflicts of interest, and ignorance are indeed common to all societies, and won't go away if religion goes away, but fundamentalism isn't a feature of all societies, and while quite possibly it could rear its head in a post-religious world, there's no reason to think it's inevitable, or even all that probable.

[Hamlet]

The incentive they ought to exert? Well a Christian ought to want heaven (God) and ought not to want hell (absence of God). Desiring to avoid the absence of God (hell) is the same thing as desiring God. And doing the good for goodness sake and doing the good for heavens sake are really the same thing.

I think you've just dissolved the distinction you tried to create in your first post.

Anyway, exactly how and for whom heaven and hell are incentives is beside the point. The point is that religious morality is a function of God's values instead of human values. Actually these are not quite mutually exclusive, of course: God's values are really just a projection of the values of certain priests, busybodies, and control freaks whose useful (to them) but oppressive (to many others) myths and illusions beg to be shattered. In some cases, additionally, they may be a projection of less devious values as well; there are, after all, a few religious people who are neither control freaks themselves nor brainwashed by control freaks.

Uh huh. There's the question of whether the good has intrinsic value in Christianity. It does. Christians don't think the good is just some reward or punishment (although it's not less); even if there is no heaven or hell, some things really are good. Now if you bring incentives and motives into it (along with the intrinsic value), and say Christians can only act out of fear of hell, you'd be wrong. A Christian does what is good because it is good. But since God is goodness, anything done for goodness sake is done for heavens sake (or God's sake); that holds even if your an atheist (according to the Christian, but the atheist of course won't think so).

[exmormon]

Uh huh. There's the question of whether the good has intrinsic value in Christianity. It does. Christians don't think the good is just some reward or punishment (although it's not less); even if there is no heaven or hell, some things really are good. Now if you bring incentives and motives into it (along with the intrinsic value), and say Christians can only act out of fear of hell, you'd be wrong. A Christian does what is good because it is good. But since God is goodness, anything done for goodness sake is done for heavens sake (or God's sake); that holds even if your an atheist (according to the Christian, but the atheist of course won't think so).

I bring incentives and motives into it because that's how the real world works. Your theology may say that Christians are a certain way, or ought to be, or believe a certain way, or ought to, and Christians who aren't that way may nevertheless believe they are, but what you're describing is a Christian ideal, not the reality. It's simply absurd to say that Christians, or anyone else, would be unfazed by the prospect of eternal torture or bliss. If in any given situation I were to somehow think that my eternal fate hangs on my decision in that situation, I'm going to weigh that consideration far more heavily than any of the other pros and cons related to that decision. The rational decision in that situation is not necessarily going to be the same as it would be without that eternal consideration. I may end up making a decision that is more harmful to myself and/or others as a result, because that's infinitely well worth not going to hell. Anybody who cares more about who they benefit or harm in the short term, than whether they themselves will be happy or miserable forever, is crazy, and vulnerable to being manipulated by others. By definition, in hell you're miserable; you're not patting yourself on the back with satisfaction that your misery is worth whatever you did to land yourself there. I don't care what your theology says; this is simply the way that rational decision-making works.

Now if people didn't believe in heaven and hell, then these things wouldn't distract them in their decision-making. Many Christians ask us atheists how one can be moral without God. Such an astonishingly ignorant question can only be symptomatic of their apparently having allowed religious considerations to completely dominate over practical considerations in their decision-making, to the point that they do not even comprehend the more real, more tangible, more grounded, and less faith-demanding practical reasons why it's rational to do good, even if often they subconsciously employ them in situations where their religion doesn't spell out exactly what they should do.

I'm saying, probably in agreement with the OP, that this kind of morality at best only indirectly benefits anyone, and too-frequently misfires. Cut out the bogus layers of abstraction in which "good" or "bad" is something other than a straightforward adjective applied directly and concretely to something that is identifiably beneficial or harmful/distasteful to someone. Yes, the same thing that is good for person A could be bad for person B. That's what accuracy requires, though; good riddance, absolutism. Any attempt to pretend that there's an objective or absolute value for that thing will necessarily constitute a middle finger aimed at either person A or person B or both, and therefore not only doesn't solve the problem but compounds it. Religious and other absolutist moralities are essentially a case of person A trying to get an advantage by elevating the status of his own interest at the expense of person B; he doesn't have to feel as bad about giving person B the shaft if he can convince himself that his way is God's way, or the objectively correct way. At the very least, the end of religious morality would be good for all the person Bs out there. Deflating person A's bogus moral abstractions is simply the natural counterattack. Additionally, hopefully the intellectual honesty that is required to deal with the absence of such abstractions, will be of general benefit.

[arkirk]

I have struggled with the question many times. What human flaw seems to predispose certain people to religion? It is as if some part of their cognitive processes has shut down. I would venture to say that religion without authority would be a wash. The religions we have been plagued with for thousands of years have had priesthoods and inquisitors and warlords as enforcers. I maintain that it was religion that enforced and dictated social behavior that has really hurt the human race.

The problem as I see it is that society is already very heavily conditioned by religion and if it were to be taken away tomorrow, there would be a problem. Religion has not allowed alternative ideas and hence the religious do not have a stock of ideas upon which to draw that are not related to their particular religious view. The religious brain has been conditioned not to reason but to believe and obey. We see the religious all the time in this forum quoting the Bible in Jonahesque terms, trying to get us to stop reasoning. Hell! The human race was stalled by this phenomenon for over 2,000 years.

It is a leap forward when you abandon religion, suspecting in your heart (very subjective here) there still is a way to live in harmony with your fellow man and your environment. If you put your mind to doing that, you will not be picketing abortion centers, or burning heretics at the stake. You will be a genuine benefit to the entire race of mankind...liberated to think the thoughts that may save our race.

[Riley Stone]

From a moral standpoint, in my opinion, religion is totally insufficient. This is because religion does not have humans do what is right because right has intrinsic value, but because of a system of punishments and rewards. .


Interesting post. Personally, I would not necessarily find fault with a religious person because he is motivated to do good by a desire to be rewarded or out of a desire to avoid punishment. I think that at least to some extent, all of our behaviors (whether we are religious or not) are motivated by the desire to experience real or perceived benefits or by a desire to avoid real or perceived negative outcomes.

My concern about what motivates a religious person to do “good” would lie more in an analysis of the way in which a religious person defines "good."

For example, many if not most evangelical Christians believe that the behavior of a God who imposes eternal torment on non-believers is a behavior that results from Gods “good” nature. If a person views obviously cruel and hateful behavior (and I would submit that eternal torment is an obviously cruel and hateful behavior) as a product of “goodness,” then it seems to me that that person is at great risk of behaving, at some point in his life, in a very cruel and hateful manner and then justifying his own cruel and hateful behavior as a product of his own "goodness" or his own desire to do that which is "good."

[Riley Stone]

I think it's a gross mischaracterization to say that instead of Christians asking themselves, "what is the right thing for me to do here," they ask themselves, "what is the hell-eluding-thing for me to do here."


. . . And doing the good for goodness sake and doing the good for heavens sake are really the same thing. . . .

If “doing the good for goodness sake” and “doing the good” out of a desire to receive heaven (and to avoid hell) are the same thing (as you stated in Post #8), then it is emphatically not a "gross mischaracterization" to characterize Christians as asking themselves, “what is the hell-eluding-thing for me to do here.”

[d-ray]

Essentially, religious morality is, at its base, selfish. To be fair, the idea of enlightened self-interest falls into this category as well. People should not seek to help their fellow human because they can get some reward or avoid some punishment, but because it is intrinsically good to do so.



I personally act (or try to act) out of enlightened self-interest, and I don't see anything wrong with that. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If I do good to others, the chances are at least reasonably good that they will reciprocate. At the very least, I avoid making more enemies than I have to.
What is intrinsically good for people to do? Philosophers have been arguing that question from ancient times, and I don't know that we'll ever get any agreement on it. Will we say that virtue is its own reward? I personally believe that it is, but that's an idea that has never sold. People need to see a reason for what they do--which generally means they're asking "what's in it for me?"
I think that the real reason for being moral, for doing good to others, is that it will make the individual happier, and it will make society as a whole happier. Is it so bad to say to someone, "Be good, because you will be happier"?
I can't prove that what I think is "intrinsically good" is actually so, and in any case, I don't think many people would listen.

[jsgoddess]

It's simply absurd to say that Christians, or anyone else, would be unfazed by the prospect of eternal torture or bliss. If in any given situation I were to somehow think that my eternal fate hangs on my decision in that situation, I'm going to weigh that consideration far more heavily than any of the other pros and cons related to that decision.

I'm not sure that your conclusion follows. People are simply inclined to do what's easiest or most enjoyable in the short term and to hell with (no pun intended) the long-term consequences.

Our ideas of what risks or rewards are likely are always extremely skewed, and I see no reason why the prospect of heaven or hell would be any different than, say, the prospect of running my car off the road or the prospect of winning the lottery or the prospect of gaining five hundred pounds.

Applicable cliches would be: "I'll make up for it tomorrow," or "Things like that happen to other people, not to me," or "This isn't a big deal in the larger picture," or "Everybody does it, so why can't I?"

[pammalamma]

I actually think you make a good point that religion asks people not to do good for the sake of good itself, but for God's sake. Whether that is undesirable is up for debate, and whether you like it or not will probably depend on your views of human nature.

What I do see as being a positive thing about religious moral imperatives, however, is that it overcomes two things intrinsic to human nature: selfishness and pride.

Even if it were proveable and undeniable by anyone that helping your fellow man is *good* (we'd need to work on Nietzsche's opinions on the issue) there is still the issue of whom one should help. In the event that someone else's needs are incompatible with my own, should I sacrifice my own interests, or help my fellow man? After all, we're both equally valuable human beings, so why should I help my fellow man instead of myself? Is there any guarantee that he'll help me. Most religions overcome this dilemma by stating that sacrifice is inherently good. That is certainly hard to prove using only evolution and "selfish gene"-type observations.

Secondly, I know that you can remember dealing with some people who don't seem to care about "what is good." I'm not going to characterize them, but you know who I'm talking about. Religion helps these people, giving them humility by stating that there is a power greater than themselves. I have seen religion change people who didn't care about being good into people who did care about others. It also deals with people's natural laziness in not wanting to bother helping people by offering, yes, rewards and punishments. So, although that doesn't seem to appeal to you, perhaps you can see that it could be useful for some people who don't want to be bothered with other people's problems.

[jsgoddess]

I have seen religion change people who didn't care about being good into people who did care about others.

True. When I lost religion I realized that I had to take care of others since this is the only life we've got and god sure as hell wasn't going to do it.

[d-ray]

I have seen religion change people who didn't care about being good into people who did care about others.

But they tend to care about only other people who are like them--who share their beliefs, their skin color, their socio-economic status, etc.

[two wheels]

What I do see as being a positive thing about religious moral imperatives, however, is that it overcomes two things intrinsic to human nature: selfishness and pride.


Selfishness and defiantly pride are not intrinsic to human nature, rather they are constructs of the collective in this case (religion). I believe you are confusing selfishness with laziness which is part of human nature. The brain will tell the body to only move just enough to get the job done. Why is pride part of human nature. When all it says is, "look at me I'm so *good*".

[arkirk]

Selfish? Try claiming to be a special case with God. That's about as selfish (and stupid) as it gets! Prideful? Try lambasting an atheist as stupid and unable to understand the ever abiding "love" of God. That's about as proud and selfish as it gets. Even the God of the Bible had no use for a Jonah and punished him for his lust to punish his fellow man. There is something that happens to a person who shuts down his cognitive processes and chooses to live in an eternal dream of specialness. They stop being good citizens in a democratic society and start to become servants of their God.
They harden their hearts against their fellow man and accept whatever "God" does to them. They become immune to reason. They so often lack compassion. I agree it would be good if this thing just slowly disappeared from the earth. A point I made earlier here seems somehow to have gone missing.

Religion of the theistic type is definitely a form of mental conditioning (ala Pablov). If you take it away suddenly, then you have people who have no experience in considering on a secular basis ethics. This can be real troublesome.

[two wheels]

Secondly, I know that you can remember dealing with some people who don't seem to care about "what is good." I'm not going to characterize them, but you know who I'm talking about. Religion helps these people, giving them humility by stating that there is a power greater than themselves. I have seen religion change people who didn't care about being good into people who did care about others. It also deals with people's natural laziness in not wanting to bother helping people by offering, yes, rewards and punishments. So, although that doesn't seem to appeal to you, perhaps you can see that it could be useful for some people who don't want to be bothered with other people's problems.

The term natural laziness in the context that is used, shows the confusion between laziness and selfishness that was previously pointed out.
Religion helps people by giving them HUMILITY.Making them (humble, subservient). For what purpose The Subjective good.
I would like to present an example of subjective good .
An atheist family employs a christian tutor to help their children in maths. This tutor, seeing that the children know nothing about the bible decides that it is more important to teach the children about the bible and god instead of helping them with maths. In the chistian tutors eyes he was doing a good thing. But in the eyes of the atheist parents it was evil.

[dougsnuggler]

Many Christians ask us atheists how one can be moral without God. Such an astonishingly ignorant question can only be symptomatic of their apparently having allowed religious considerations to completely dominate over practical considerations in their decision-making, to the point that they do not even comprehend the more real, more tangible, more grounded, and less faith-demanding practical reasons why it's rational to do good, even if often they subconsciously employ them in situations where their religion doesn't spell out exactly what they should do.

I think the real question is why would we be moral without God. I think the claim that it is rational to do good puts you on very shaky ground. If what is good is based on rational analysis, surely certain cunning people could make the argument that, in their case, it is rational to do what most would consider bad. If I know I have a good chance of stealing all of your money and getting away with it, why shouldn't I?

[/QUOTE]
True. When I lost religion I realized that I had to take care of others since this is the only life we've got and god sure as hell wasn't going to do it.[/QUOTE]

Why do you have to take care of others? Because it makes you feel good? The best part about a world without a god is that you can do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it.

Selfish? Try claiming to be a special case with God. That's about as selfish (and stupid) as it gets! Prideful? Try lambasting an atheist as stupid and unable to understand the ever abiding "love" of God. That's about as proud and selfish as it gets. Even the God of the Bible had no use for a Jonah and punished him for his lust to punish his fellow man. There is something that happens to a person who shuts down his cognitive processes and chooses to live in an eternal dream of specialness. They stop being good citizens in a democratic society and start to become servants of their God.
They harden their hearts against their fellow man and accept whatever "God" does to them. They become immune to reason. They so often lack compassion. I agree it would be good if this thing just slowly disappeared from the earth. A point I made earlier here seems somehow to have gone missing.

Religion of the theistic type is definitely a form of mental conditioning (ala Pablov). If you take it away suddenly, then you have people who have no experience in considering on a secular basis ethics. This can be real troublesome.

Is this really true of all who believe in a higher power? If you cast aside your own obvious distaste for the religious and think about it objectively I think you'll agree that this is not always the case. Though it may be true in some instances (maybe in most instances) this does not make those who compassionately follow religion unselfishly and without pride the followers of a flawed system.

Further, it is hard to have a healthy debate in an environment when anyone who disagrees with a certain position is declared "immune to reason."

[Civil1z@tion]

I think the real question is why would we be moral without God. I think the claim that it is rational to do good puts you on very shaky ground. If what is good is based on rational analysis, surely certain cunning people could make the argument that, in their case, it is rational to do what most would consider bad. If I know I have a good chance of stealing all of your money and getting away with it, why shouldn't I?

The principle of reciprocity. By doing such acts, you are encouraging others to do the same to you when they get the chance. Its not rational to be OK with others stealing from you (unless you don't care about material objects...but if you don't, yourself stealing is also stupid), but your actions are esstentially signaling that you don't recognize rules against stealing and thus its OK for you to be stolen from.

[dougsnuggler]

I think the real question is why would we be moral without God. I think the claim that it is rational to do good puts you on very shaky ground. If what is good is based on rational analysis, surely certain cunning people could make the argument that, in their case, it is rational to do what most would consider bad. If I know I have a good chance of stealing all of your money and getting away with it, why shouldn't I?

The principle of reciprocity. By doing such acts, you are encouraging others to do the same to you when they get the chance. Its not rational to be OK with others stealing from you (unless you don't care about material objects...but if you don't, yourself stealing is also stupid), but your actions are esstentially signaling that you don't recognize rules against stealing and thus its OK for you to be stolen from.

But the truly cunning would ensure that you never knew they stole in the first place. Then what?

[Civil1z@tion]

The principle of reciprocity. By doing such acts, you are encouraging others to do the same to you when they get the chance. Its not rational to be OK with others stealing from you (unless you don't care about material objects...but if you don't, yourself stealing is also stupid), but your actions are esstentially signaling that you don't recognize rules against stealing and thus its OK for you to be stolen from.

But the truly cunning would ensure that you never knew they stole in the first place. Then what?

The problem still comes from the mindset that stealing is ok if you get away with it. At the very least, you would not want to tell anyone else to follow this philosophy lest it act against you. Thus the truly cunning would not argue for such a view.

But as a practicle matter, chances are you'll either eventually get caught, or at the least people will begin noticing the thefts and thus what I said originally comes into play.

[dougsnuggler]

But the truly cunning would ensure that you never knew they stole in the first place. Then what?

The problem still comes from the mindset that stealing is ok if you get away with it. At the very least, you would not want to tell anyone else to follow this philosophy lest it act against you. Thus the truly cunning would not argue for such a view.

But as a practicle matter, chances are you'll either eventually get caught, or at the least people will begin noticing the thefts and thus what I said originally comes into play.

Then the cunning thief would wait until just the right moment and steal a large sum all at once. Then no one would notice. And of course he wouldn't tell anyone else of his philosophy, he's much too cunning for that. Although he could be fairly sure that due to their conscience/psychological makeup, the populace would not be likely to change their views on stealing just because he was stealing. You'll find that even people who have no reason to act in accordance with any value system come up with some convoluted reason to be "moral."

Setting that aside, what if the cunning thief wasn't stealing money, but instead cigarettes and food on a small boat with two other men. What if they notice he's stealing, but even with their combined forces he is powerful enough to defend his loot? Then it is rational to steal. Maybe he would leave them just enough to stay alive so that he would have company. Would this behavior be considered moral?

It is interesting to note that regardless of the aforementioned points, your principle of reciprocity is simply another form of selfishness. If my main reason for not stealing is to avoid creating an atmosphere in which my own property is not safe, then aren't my actions merely the result of a wish to avoid unpleasant consequences?

Essentially, religious morality is, at its base, selfish. To be fair, the idea of enlightened self-interest falls into this category as well. People should not seek to help their fellow human because they can get some reward or avoid some punishment, but because it is intrinsically good to do so.

It would seem then that the only proper thing to do is discard all our previously held views on morality and regard it rather as a personality trait. Nothing is intrinsically good or evil. You may find someone to be moral and I may not, just as you may think Robin Williams is funny and I may not.

[jsgoddess]

True. When I lost religion I realized that I had to take care of others since this is the only life we've got and god sure as hell wasn't going to do it.

Why do you have to take care of others? Because it makes you feel good? The best part about a world without a god is that you can do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it.

I can do whatever I want, god or no god. If I want others to be cared for, and I do, I've got to do it myself. My "have to" is about my own wishes and choices, not yours.

[Civil1z@tion]

To dougsnuggler,

I suppose there is nothing I can say to convince you to necessarily adopt my moral philosophy. But there is nothing forcing me to adopt yours either. However, since I dod care about the welfare of my fellow human beings, I cannot abide by unwarrented harm to them. Therefore, I must support laws and law enforcement which would seek to prevent, punish, and deter such actions. Thus, its fine by me if you hold that philosophy of solely caring for yourself, but as I do not and will not I necessarily have to support those institutions which prevent you acting on that philosophy to the detriment of my fellow humans.

Furthermore, given that perfect crimes are very hard to pull off, the chances of great failure necessarily attend your chances of great success. I suppose it comes down to the question of is it better to chance your fortunes on the hopes of a big win but with the (more likely in most cases) probability of a great loss (basically a gambler's mentality), or is it better to go the path of (often probable) moderate success against a more moderate defeat.

[dougsnuggler]

Why do you have to take care of others? Because it makes you feel good? The best part about a world without a god is that you can do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it.

I can do whatever I want, god or no god. If I want others to be cared for, and I do, I've got to do it myself. My "have to" is about my own wishes and choices, not yours.

You can do whatever you want with or without a god, but with one (or more) there are definite consequences for your actions no matter how sneaky you are.

Why would you want people to be taken care of? I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I'm only pointing out that without a supreme being your moral code is as pointless as those who base their actions on the supposed commandments of a supposed higher power.

To dougsnuggler,

I suppose there is nothing I can say to convince you to necessarily adopt my moral philosophy. But there is nothing forcing me to adopt yours either. However, since I dod care about the welfare of my fellow human beings, I cannot abide by unwarrented harm to them. Therefore, I must support laws and law enforcement which would seek to prevent, punish, and deter such actions. Thus, its fine by me if you hold that philosophy of solely caring for yourself, but as I do not and will not I necessarily have to support those institutions which prevent you acting on that philosophy to the detriment of my fellow humans.

Furthermore, given that perfect crimes are very hard to pull off, the chances of great failure necessarily attend your chances of great success. I suppose it comes down to the question of is it better to chance your fortunes on the hopes of a big win but with the (more likely in most cases) probability of a great loss (basically a gambler's mentality), or is it better to go the path of (often probable) moderate success against a more moderate defeat.

Of course there is no way to convince me to necessarily adopt your moral philosophy. I'm surprised you were able to persuade yourself. The views you've expressed so far are that of a world in which nothing is necessary.

I, on the other hand, am not offering a moral theory for adoption so there is nothing for me to force on you. But if I were to offer a theory you can be sure that it would include some sort of mystical creature that could create consequences for the cunning thief.

The probability of the cunning thief's success is irrelevant. The fact is that he could exist and you would have nothing to say to him. My main point is that your moral theory suffers from the same problems as religion if you think that acting in response to potential consequences is a problem and if you think that the religious are only "moral" in response to potential consequences.

[Antiplastic]

I can do whatever I want, god or no god. If I want others to be cared for, and I do, I've got to do it myself. My "have to" is about my own wishes and choices, not yours.

You can do whatever you want with or without a god, but with one (or more) there are definite consequences for your actions no matter how sneaky you are.

And even then, based on the textual and oral reports of every human mythological tradition I've ever investigated, none of the putative gods who punish and reward do so in a way that quite lines up with what would be the morally appropriate consequences. But consequences indeed there would be.

Why would you want people to be taken care of? I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I'm only pointing out that without a supreme being your moral code is as pointless as those who base their actions on the supposed commandments of a supposed higher power.

If by "pointess" you mean "having no purpose outside the people advocating it" then of course all moral codes are equally "pointless"; of course I would probably say that the search for this kind of nonpointlessness is pointless. But I would argue that surrendering your autonomy and your will as a moral being to something nonhuman is "pointlesser" inasmuch as it is the abdication of the responsibility to make decisions for oneself, which really amounts to the abdication of the project of not being pointless.

[dougsnuggler]

You can do whatever you want with or without a god, but with one (or more) there are definite consequences for your actions no matter how sneaky you are.

And even then, based on the textual and oral reports of every human mythological tradition I've ever investigated, none of the putative gods who punish and reward do so in a way that quite lines up with what would be the morally appropriate consequences. But consequences indeed there would be.

Why would you want people to be taken care of? I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I'm only pointing out that without a supreme being your moral code is as pointless as those who base their actions on the supposed commandments of a supposed higher power.

If by "pointess" you mean "having no purpose outside the people advocating it" then of course all moral codes are equally "pointless"; of course I would probably say that the search for this kind of nonpointlessness is pointless. But I would argue that surrendering your autonomy and your will as a moral being to something nonhuman is "pointlesser" inasmuch as it is the abdication of the responsibility to make decisions for oneself, which really amounts to the abdication of the project of not being pointless.

No, they're equally pointless. Making decisions based on imaginary morals is just like abdicating the decisions to an imaginary god. However, if there really is a giant spaghetti monster of some sort, I might be willing to believe there is some case to be made for nonpointlessness.

[Antiplastic]

If by "pointess" you mean "having no purpose outside the people advocating it" then of course all moral codes are equally "pointless"; of course I would probably say that the search for this kind of nonpointlessness is pointless. But I would argue that surrendering your autonomy and your will as a moral being to something nonhuman is "pointlesser" inasmuch as it is the abdication of the responsibility to make decisions for oneself, which really amounts to the abdication of the project of not being pointless.

No, they're equally pointless. Making decisions based on imaginary morals is just like abdicating the decisions to an imaginary god. However, if there really is a giant spaghetti monster of some sort, I might be willing to believe there is some case to be made for nonpointlessness.

Who ever said anything about "imaginary morals"? I'm not quite sure what those would even be. The dichotomy I was replying to was between those decisions made with a "supreme" being and those without.

[dougsnuggler]

Who ever said anything about "imaginary morals"?

It goes without saying.

[Antiplastic]

Who ever said anything about "imaginary morals"?

It goes without saying.

Well, at least it went without saying. But since I wasn't talking about imaginary morals, wouldn't that alter your response?

[dougsnuggler]

It goes without saying.

Well, at least it went without saying. But since I wasn't talking about imaginary morals, wouldn't that alter your response?

No, there is no other kind. When talking about unicorns it goes without saying that we are talking about something imaginary. So is the case with morals.

But this is not really relevant to the topic at hand. What I would like to know is how Civil1z@tion can advocate for the end of religion based on the fact that its moral code could be construed to be based on consequences when the replacement he offers suffers from the same problem.

[Antiplastic]

Well, at least it went without saying. But since I wasn't talking about imaginary morals, wouldn't that alter your response?

No, there is no other kind. When talking about unicorns it goes without saying that we are talking about something imaginary. So is the case with morals.

Well, I know of some morals which are not imaginary (in the sense of being neither erroneous nor fictional). So you can probably understand how perplexing it is to hear that it goes without saying that I don't exist. Do I still have to pay my phone bill this month?

But this is not really relevant to the topic at hand. What I would like to know is how Civil1z@tion can advocate for the end of religion based on the fact that its moral code could be construed to be based on consequences when the replacement he offers suffers from the same problem.

Well, it suffers from the same problem just to the extent that it "goes without saying" that your highly question-begging and unargued-for premise is correct. But that's not a very interesting way to frame a conversation, in my experience. Do you have any arguments for why all morals are "imaginary"? Could you expand maybe on whether by "imaginary" you are putting forth an error theory, or fictionalism, or maybe noncognitivism of some stripe?

[dougsnuggler]

No, there is no other kind. When talking about unicorns it goes without saying that we are talking about something imaginary. So is the case with morals.

Well, I know of some morals which are not imaginary (in the sense of being neither erroneous nor fictional). So you can probably understand how perplexing it is to hear that it goes without saying that I don't exist. Do I still have to pay my phone bill this month?

You phone bill question assumes that it was morals that led to your payment of past phone bills. I don't think that it was. Perhaps in another thread you can tell me about the morals you've come up with sometime.

Well, it suffers from the same problem just to the extent that it "goes without saying" that your highly question-begging and unargued-for premise is correct. But that's not a very interesting way to frame a conversation, in my experience. Do you have any arguments for why all morals are "imaginary"? Could you expand maybe on whether by "imaginary" you are putting forth an error theory, or fictionalism, or maybe noncognitivism of some stripe?

By imaginary I mean that they are imagined. When I mentioned it I wasn't intending to frame a conversation. I replied to an irrelevant post, then you replied to my irrelevant reply to the irrelevant post, etc. and now here we are talking about imaginary morals.

There's nothing cryptic about my point regarding the moral need for the end of religion. Civil1z@tion believes there is a moral need for the end of religion because he says its adherents act in response to the perceived eternal consequences of their actions. When I asked why anyone would be moral otherwise he said it was because of the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity? I don't think I need to explain the rest of the conversation, if you're performing good acts to avoid having bad acts reciprocated upon you then you are acting in response to the perceived consequences of your actions.

[Civil1z@tion]

Civil1z@tion believes there is a moral need for the end of religion because he says its adherents act in response to the perceived eternal consequences of their actions. When I asked why anyone would be moral otherwise he said it was because of the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity? I don't think I need to explain the rest of the conversation, if you're performing good acts to avoid having bad acts reciprocated upon you then you are acting in response to the perceived consequences of your actions.

To be honest posts previous to yours convinced me I was incorrect about what I was thinking so that's why I answered with the idea of reciprocity. Just to remove confusion I officially state that I think I was wrong.

So if you were trying to convince me my OP was wrong, others beat you to the punch. ;)

[dougsnuggler]

Civil1z@tion believes there is a moral need for the end of religion because he says its adherents act in response to the perceived eternal consequences of their actions. When I asked why anyone would be moral otherwise he said it was because of the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity? I don't think I need to explain the rest of the conversation, if you're performing good acts to avoid having bad acts reciprocated upon you then you are acting in response to the perceived consequences of your actions.

To be honest posts previous to yours convinced me I was incorrect about what I was thinking so that's why I answered with the idea of reciprocity. Just to remove confusion I officially state that I think I was wrong.

So if you were trying to convince me my OP was wrong, others beat you to the punch. ;)

Fair enough.

[arkirk]

Many Christians ask us atheists how one can be moral without God. Such an astonishingly ignorant question can only be symptomatic of their apparently having allowed religious considerations to completely dominate over practical considerations in their decision-making, to the point that they do not even comprehend the more real, more tangible, more grounded, and less faith-demanding practical reasons why it's rational to do good, even if often they subconsciously employ them in situations where their religion doesn't spell out exactly what they should do.

I think the real question is why would we be moral without God. I think the claim that it is rational to do good puts you on very shaky ground. If what is good is based on rational analysis, surely certain cunning people could make the argument that, in their case, it is rational to do what most would consider bad. If I know I have a good chance of stealing all of your money and getting away with it, why shouldn't I?


True. When I lost religion I realized that I had to take care of others since this is the only life we've got and god sure as hell wasn't going to do it.[/QUOTE]

Why do you have to take care of others? Because it makes you feel good? The best part about a world without a god is that you can do whatever you want as long as you can get away with it.

Selfish? Try claiming to be a special case with God. That's about as selfish (and stupid) as it gets! Prideful? Try lambasting an atheist as stupid and unable to understand the ever abiding "love" of God. That's about as proud and selfish as it gets. Even the God of the Bible had no use for a Jonah and punished him for his lust to punish his fellow man. There is something that happens to a person who shuts down his cognitive processes and chooses to live in an eternal dream of specialness. They stop being good citizens in a democratic society and start to become servants of their God.
They harden their hearts against their fellow man and accept whatever "God" does to them. They become immune to reason. They so often lack compassion. I agree it would be good if this thing just slowly disappeared from the earth. A point I made earlier here seems somehow to have gone missing.

Religion of the theistic type is definitely a form of mental conditioning (ala Pablov). If you take it away suddenly, then you have people who have no experience in considering on a secular basis ethics. This can be real troublesome.

Is this really true of all who believe in a higher power? If you cast aside your own obvious distaste for the religious and think about it objectively I think you'll agree that this is not always the case. Though it may be true in some instances (maybe in most instances) this does not make those who compassionately follow religion unselfishly and without pride the followers of a flawed system.

Further, it is hard to have a healthy debate in an environment when anyone who disagrees with a certain position is declared "immune to reason."[/QUOTE]

I didn't say anything at all about believing in a higher power or disbelief in that. The word Theism is the operative here. That means a God that is "man-like" anthropomorphic, and given to fits of anger against the erring human race...Read "God's" Book. It is arrogant beyond reason. Those who take this stuff literally can burn people at the stake, water board, blow countries to hell, etc. all on "God's Word." In Proverbs there is a piece about how to deal with those who do not believe and do not obey...a rod for the back of the fool. I would prefer to be a fool not under the controll of Proverbs believers thank you!:Cheeky:

[dougsnuggler]

I didn't say anything at all about believing in a higher power or disbelief in that. The word Theism is the operative here. That means a God that is "man-like" anthropomorphic, and given to fits of anger against the erring human race...Read "God's" Book. It is arrogant beyond reason. Those who take this stuff literally can burn people at the stake, water board, blow countries to hell, etc. all on "God's Word." In Proverbs there is a piece about how to deal with those who do not believe and do not obey...a rod for the back of the fool. I would prefer to be a fool not under the controll of Proverbs believers thank you!:Cheeky:

Theism only requires belief in a deity. The nature of the deity is not defined.

[Antiplastic]

Well, I know of some morals which are not imaginary (in the sense of being neither erroneous nor fictional). So you can probably understand how perplexing it is to hear that it goes without saying that I don't exist. Do I still have to pay my phone bill this month?

You phone bill question assumes that it was morals that led to your payment of past phone bills. I don't think that it was.

I guess my joke fell flat. The reasoning was that I don't have to pay my phone bill because I don't exist, because you defined me out of existence "without saying".

Well, it suffers from the same problem just to the extent that it "goes without saying" that your highly question-begging and unargued-for premise is correct. But that's not a very interesting way to frame a conversation, in my experience. Do you have any arguments for why all morals are "imaginary"? Could you expand maybe on whether by "imaginary" you are putting forth an error theory, or fictionalism, or maybe noncognitivism of some stripe?

By imaginary I mean that they are imagined. When I mentioned it I wasn't intending to frame a conversation. I replied to an irrelevant post, then you replied to my irrelevant reply to the irrelevant post, etc. and now here we are talking about imaginary morals.

And I still don't know what you mean. There are a number of logically distinct views that could go under the umbrella of "imaginary". Could you expand maybe on whether by "imaginary" you are putting forth an error theory, or fictionalism, or maybe noncognitivism of some stripe?

There's nothing cryptic about my point regarding the moral need for the end of religion. Civil1z@tion believes there is a moral need for the end of religion because he says its adherents act in response to the perceived eternal consequences of their actions. When I asked why anyone would be moral otherwise he said it was because of the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity? I don't think I need to explain the rest of the conversation, if you're performing good acts to avoid having bad acts reciprocated upon you then you are acting in response to the perceived consequences of your actions.

You won't find any argument from me trying to defend grounding morality in practical reasoning or any form of externalism. It's clearly false that moral reasons are identical with or reduce to optimization of self-interest in some decision-theoretic way. I remain concerned that you still seem to think that because this one metaethical theory fails, it "goes without saying" that they all do.

[dougsnuggler]

You phone bill question assumes that it was morals that led to your payment of past phone bills. I don't think that it was.

I guess my joke fell flat. The reasoning was that I don't have to pay my phone bill because I don't exist, because you defined me out of existence "without saying".
I'm sorry, I didn't know that you were a moral. I would have tried to break the news of your imaginaritude more softly had I known.


And I still don't know what you mean.
That is because I'm not trying to defend a position on the matter.


There's nothing cryptic about my point regarding the moral need for the end of religion. Civil1z@tion believes there is a moral need for the end of religion because he says its adherents act in response to the perceived eternal consequences of their actions. When I asked why anyone would be moral otherwise he said it was because of the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity? I don't think I need to explain the rest of the conversation, if you're performing good acts to avoid having bad acts reciprocated upon you then you are acting in response to the perceived consequences of your actions.

You won't find any argument from me trying to defend grounding morality in practical reasoning or any form of externalism. It's clearly false that moral reasons are identical with or reduce to optimization of self-interest in some decision-theoretic way. I remain concerned that you still seem to think that because this one metaethical theory fails, it "goes without saying" that they all do.
I never said that they all do. I only said that this one does. I was then informed that the fact had already been brought to the attention of the member who came up with it. So now I'm just checking in periodically to see what you think that I think goes without saying (because apparently since I said it about one issue, everything I say is now assumed to go without saying- which it doesn't, as evidenced by the fact that I am saying it).

[Reason]

Even genuine empathy can have a selfish element. Not that this is a bad thing. Just that I see empathy as "That could very well be me in that person's shoes someday, so how would I want someone else to react?".

There is argument to be made that there are no truly selfless acts. We do what we do because it serves us in some way, whether material or emotional. Notwithstanding that our actions produce "good" or "help" to another, personal benefit (strokes, recognition/accolades of others, standing in the community, etc.) still attends.

[thentian]

I think it was Hume who said that religion has a very bad effect on morality. (Or words to that effect.)

1) It labels morally irrelevant things as sinful. E.g: "unapproved" sexual acts between consenting adults, certain foods are "unclean", working on some days, etc
2) It elevates morally irrelevant things to virtues. E.g: wearing certain clothes, hairstyles, avoiding some foods on certain days, etc
3) It causes people to ignore pressing social and political concerns for "pie in the sky". E.g: a xian who thinks global warming is not a problem because Jesus will return very soon.
4) It causes otherwise nice people to commit atrocities in the name of religion. No need to give examples here, I think.
5) It causes people to not think about moral issues, because all the answers are found in scripture.
6) It causes people to not take responsibility for their bad morality, because their "sins have been washed away" or forgiven in the confessional. (Christians only)

I may have added a couple of things to what Hume said there, but I doubt he would have minded! :) Feel free to add more complaints to the list above!

What's worse is that it doesn't seem to have any good effects on religious people's morality otherwise, either.

Do christians lie less than others? They seem to me to be the worlds foremost experts on "white lies" and "lying for God". Then we have GW Bush, the Pope, televangelists, and true (but not necessarily truthful) believers who tell tales on these forums that only our good manners stops us from saying what we really think of.

Do believers kill less than others? Oh, jeez! Where to start? :rolleyes:

Do believers steal less? Hmm... I haven't considered that, actually, so maybe they do. Could look that up in chrime statistics, maybe.

In short, if christianity and all the rest of the religions vanished overnight, we need not fear for the morality of the general public.

Cheers! :)

[Simen]

Many Christians ask us atheists how one can be moral without God. Such an astonishingly ignorant question can only be symptomatic of their apparently having allowed religious considerations to completely dominate over practical considerations in their decision-making, to the point that they do not even comprehend the more real, more tangible, more grounded, and less faith-demanding practical reasons why it's rational to do good, even if often they subconsciously employ them in situations where their religion doesn't spell out exactly what they should do.

I think the real question is why would we be moral without God. I think the claim that it is rational to do good puts you on very shaky ground.
You are, in a sense, both right and wrong. You're right that there is no rationally preferrable ethics from an objective point of view. You're wrong in saying that it isn't rational to do good, because "doing good" presupposes a valuation of actions, such that some actions are preferred and some are not, and once one is committed to valuing certain actions better than others, it's trivial that it's rational to do "good" actions, since good actions are those actions that are preferred, or that are prescribed on the basis of preferred norms, or the like. If I committed myself to valuing the preservation of rainforests, then actions that preserve rainforests would be rational for me to do. But, you may ask, why would I ever commit myself to that in the first place? Surely that couldn't be rational, haven't I already said it wouldn't be rationally preferrable from a detached point of view? The answer to that is more pragmatic than profound. We are already committed to valuing some actions more than others. Never mind how we got those values; we can't rid ourselves of them anyways. As humans, we prefer certain things, and we do care, whether there is any reason for us to do so or not. There is no more objective reason to be uncaring and cold than there is to be caring and warm.

If what is good is based on rational analysis, surely certain cunning people could make the argument that, in their case, it is rational to do what most would consider bad. If I know I have a good chance of stealing all of your money and getting away with it, why shouldn't I?

Well, the thing is, I don't care about your perspective. If you value personal profit more than morality, that won't change my perspective. I will still not move one inch from my position that it's wrong. Why shouldn't you steal? Because you value property rights, because you recognize the border between my property and yours, because you think it's fair that the fruits of my labor, or whatever I buy for the money I earn is mine and not yours, because it will make your fellow man unhappy; for any number of reasons. If none of these reasons move you, there's nothing more rational to be said to or fro. Neither side will end up convincing the other.

If you're saying "why be moral", you're either asking a question that doesn't make sense, or you're in a moral frame, in which case it's tautological. If the predicate "... is moral" is incoherent, then it makes no sense to ask why you should be moral, and the answer in any case is that you can't be, there's no such thing as being moral or immoral. If not, then you've accepted the moral discourse, in which case you are committed to the idea of good actions as preferrable, in which case "why be moral" is self-evident: it's rational to be moral because moral actions are the preferred actions.

It makes a little more sense to ask, "why be moral when there are prudentially preferrable actions that contradict the moral action?" But in the end, there is no answer to this question. It becomes a question of which values you value the most: your own profit or others' well-being. There is no rational answer to that. You value what you value, because you are who you are. Neither is preferrable from a vantage point outside any given individual's evaluations.

[arkirk]

I didn't say anything at all about believing in a higher power or disbelief in that. The word Theism is the operative here. That means a God that is "man-like" anthropomorphic, and given to fits of anger against the erring human race...Read "God's" Book. It is arrogant beyond reason. Those who take this stuff literally can burn people at the stake, water board, blow countries to hell, etc. all on "God's Word." In Proverbs there is a piece about how to deal with those who do not believe and do not obey...a rod for the back of the fool. I would prefer to be a fool not under the controll of Proverbs believers thank you!:Cheeky:

Theism only requires belief in a deity. The nature of the deity is not defined.

You are mistaking Theism for Deism. Theism is a defining of the deity. It's a matter of human hubris that human gods are so often like the worst of humans.:huh:

[Elfman]

In short, if christianity and all the rest of the religions vanished overnight, we need not fear for the morality of the general public.

Cheers! :)

Well, it was a nice diatribe, but if one really wants to weigh all the evidence, you have to admit that religion has done a whole lot of good for people/world too.

1. The church has been a help to the poor and the needy not just for its members but for the larger populace. (My members in my church sent over 75,000 for Katrina relief.) It used to be the welfare system in America.

2. Christians have taken on moral causes and changed their societies for the betterment of the disadvataged (and others). William Wilberforce was largely responsible for the ending of slavery in Britain and his issue was one of moral conviction based on his religious principles. Many abolitionist supporters in the US were motivated by their Christian beliefs.

3. The rituals supported by the church have had a stabilizing effect on society. (Marriage, etc...)

4. Reformed individuals....there are thousands of ex-convicts and reformed addicts that can share with you how the belief in a higher power helped change their lives.

So while it is fun to point out how people have misused religion to do evil (crusades, witchburning, Spanish inquisition, etc..), it is a dishonest assesment to not include also the positive.

Really, how have the best examples of "atheist" nations done as far as morality and human rights? Let's see....Stalin, Mao.....on scale that weighs spilt blood and human suffering, the effects of non-religion on society have proven (at least most recently) to be far outweighing the negatives from the religious societies. You might want to rethink your premise and mention the distinction between when people use a religion to do bad as opposed to doing what the religion actually teaches. As it has been said, "The problem is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, it is that it has not been tried."

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Right. Religion has done good and bad. Sounds like your typical human endeavor, right?


I find deploring theistic religion because you do things to avoid hell and/or gain heaven, as if that made it worse than irreligion, is unsupportable. In the end, we all act from both (a) selfish interest and (b) empathy, unless obviously if you are a psychopath. So religionists are no more at fault here than the irreligious, and viceversa.

If any religion or ideology were to be ended it is because of falsity. Because if God did exist and wanted our salvation, then theistic religion would actually be a moral necessity.

So in the case I believe that a religion or religions are false, I should help people under its spell to understand this. But what if I'm wrong? Then I expect them to argue back until reason conquers and truth prevails.

I don't see a moral need to end religion, I see a moral need to discuss religion.

[Elfman]

Right. Religion has done good and bad. Sounds like your typical human endeavor, right?


I find deploring theistic religion because you do things to avoid hell and/or gain heaven, as if that made it worse than irreligion, is unsupportable. In the end, we all act from both (a) selfish interest and (b) empathy, unless obviously if you are a psychopath. So religionists are no more at fault here than the irreligious, and viceversa.

If any religion or ideology were to be ended it is because of falsity. Because if God did exist and wanted our salvation, then theistic religion would actually be a moral necessity.

So in the case I believe that a religion or religions are false, I should help people under its spell to understand this. But what if I'm wrong? Then I expect them to argue back until reason conquers and truth prevails.

I don't see a moral need to end religion, I see a moral need to discuss religion.

Yes it does sound like a human endeavor. As it involves human actions and thoughts, one would expect it ought to look that way. I certainly don't think I can say that all religions are equal in their pragmatic value and ability to explain the world "as it is" (reality) though. Some do seem to do better than others from a purly pragmatic point of view and from a "what explains reality" view.

Interesting point about "if God exists and wants our salvation, than theistic religion would be a moral necessity." I can agree. And as you say if a view is false than you ought to help people see that. But motivationally you seem to have this moral "oughtness" in regards to getting people to see reality and discuss religion, but I fail to see where you get that from. Why ought you to care? Where is that moral obligation coming from? Why do you have a moral obligation to discuss religion or anything else?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I don't "ought" to care. I just care.
I'm simply interested in the greater good of those around me, and would like to open the paper and not see christians slander atheists, gays and secular culture, which is happening with greater and greater frequency where I live. False ideas hurt real people.

[Elfman]

I don't "ought" to care. I just care.
I'm simply interested in the greater good of those around me, and would like to open the paper and not see christians slander atheists, gays and secular culture, which is happening with greater and greater frequency where I live. False ideas hurt real people.

I misunderstood you. When you said, "I don't see a moral need to end religion, I see a moral need to discuss religion." I thought that if it is a moral need than it assumes a moral obligation. Maybe had you said that you feel it is important or useful to discuss religion, I would not have misunderstood you.

Christians ought to know not to slander anyone. One of their ten commandments is that they shouldn't lie. I sympathize with your feelings about the situation in your country as you describe it. Many Christians fail to remember that Jesus hung out with the tax collectors, prostitutes, and other sinners and was most often angry at the self-righteous relligious elites. (That is why I hang out on this forum.:p)

And while failing to live as one claims one ought to isn't necessarily a failing of the beliefs themselves, it is a failing of their witness, and ultimately puts a bad stigma on the beliefs. Witchburnings, Crusades, and Spanish Inquisitions were horrible examples of this kind of thing.

[WVIncagold]

if religion was removed, i mean truly removed nobody believed through simple education and non adherance, then we would invent other ways to hate each other. Its our nature. Political parties would cause us to kill, or because of skin color or hair color, or deepnest of voice. One thing we are good at is hating our fellow man. I think it is our most defining factor.

[WVIncagold]

Okay but lets also examine the negatives shall we?




1. The church has been a help to the poor and the needy not just for its members but for the larger populace. (My members in my church sent over 75,000 for Katrina relief.) It used to be the welfare system in America.

Fantastic and glad to hear it. Your group should be commended. How many people could you house and support inside your church? Also that is why we have welfare in America because religion based groups did a damn lousy job of it. Not saying the current government system is great but a need arose that religious based groups could not support. Again they did not house homeless in their places of worship, large buildings that could shelter and care for many homeless but does not do so.


2. Christians have taken on moral causes and changed their societies for the betterment of the disadvataged (and others). William Wilberforce was largely responsible for the ending of slavery in Britain and his issue was one of moral conviction based on his religious principles. Many abolitionist supporters in the US were motivated by their Christian beliefs.

And they should be commended. On the same token approximately 618,000 people died because Xians on the other side believed that slavery was okay because if it was good enough for god it was good enough for them.

3. The rituals supported by the church have had a stabilizing effect on society. (Marriage, etc...)

The rituals of the church also have a destabilizing effect on society such as women afraid to divorce because of the stigma created by Xianist even to the point that the husband beats them to death, Putting pedophiles in close proximity to youths, piling shame on women who are raped, Marrying young girls to old men (example LDS), Penis mutilations and clitoral mutilations etc....

4. Reformed individuals....there are thousands of ex-convicts and reformed addicts that can share with you how the belief in a higher power helped change their lives.

And just as many who were religious before they went in to the gray bar hotel. Considering the frequency of return of convicts to the prison system apparently religion is a dodge they use while in jail but soon forget when they get out.

So while it is fun to point out how people have misused religion to do evil (crusades, witchburning, Spanish inquisition, etc..), it is a dishonest assesment to not include also the positive.

But to hand wave over major human atrocities and is not exactly honest either. While there have been some attributes you could attribute all of those "good" things they were all done in the disguise as to the agenda, which is to convert people from what they believed.

Really, how have the best examples of "atheist" nations done as far as morality and human rights? Let's see....Stalin, Mao.....on scale that weighs spilt blood and human suffering, the effects of non-religion on society have proven (at least most recently) to be far outweighing the negatives from the religious societies.

How are these atheist nations? They were communist nations. Communist killed for political reasons. Many who did the killing were religious communist. Should we attribute the 9-11 million Jews victimized by the Nazis to a Christian nation? It makes as much sense.


You might want to rethink your premise and mention the distinction between when people use a religion to do bad as opposed to doing what the religion actually teaches. As it has been said, "The problem is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, it is that it has not been tried."

But thats just it. Reading the bible tells an entirely different teaching than what is taught (the whole Peace and love carrying a lamb on your shoulders BS). Kind of like the whole "Muslim is the religion of peace". by all rights your are supposed to go and kill those who do not believe and bring them before your gods feet.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

if religion was removed, i mean truly removed nobody believed through simple education and non adherance, then we would invent other ways to hate each other. Its our nature. Political parties would cause us to kill, or because of skin color or hair color, or deepnest of voice. One thing we are good at is hating our fellow man. I think it is our most defining factor.

My vision is not so bleak. Humans are susceptible to the enlightenment that comes with proper education.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I misunderstood you.

No problem. :)

[Elfman]

How many people could you house and support inside your church? Also that is why we have welfare in America because religion based groups did a damn lousy job of it. Not saying the current government system is great but a need arose that religious based groups could not support.

I would agree that more could be done by everyone. FYI, my church has worked with local homeless ministries to house battered women and other poor. We also support many non-profit organizations in town that relate to various activities such as getting exconvicts back into society, etc... But it also encourages charitable giving by individuals. Want to compare philanthropic giving by bible belt states vs any others? I have, and the bible belt states win out by far. What are atheists doing to promote charitable giving beyond paying taxes? How are they encouraged to give more?


And they should be commended. On the same token approximately 618,000 people died because Xians on the other side believed that slavery was okay because if it was good enough for god it was good enough for them.

Yes, the Bible has been misused to support bad things. That is wrong from a exegetical viewpoint as well as a moral one.



The rituals of the church also have a destabilizing effect on society such as women afraid to divorce because of the stigma created by Xianist even to the point that the husband beats them to death, Putting pedophiles in close proximity to youths, piling shame on women who are raped, Marrying young girls to old men (example LDS), Penis mutilations and clitoral mutilations etc....

Yes, the bible has been misused. I disagree that it is Christianity that supports pedophilia or mutilations..in fact, I have no doubt (and can make a biblical case here) that Jesus would be against personally harming any little children in that way. So is that a mark against christianity, or humans hijacking a faith to turn it into something unintended?


And just as many who were religious before they went in to the gray bar hotel. Considering the frequency of return of convicts to the prison system apparently religion is a dodge they use while in jail but soon forget when they get out.

No doubt to some it is a dodge. To some it isn't. Again, that is not the fault of the belief system but of the failings of people to properly apply it.


But to hand wave over major human atrocities and is not exactly honest either. While there have been some attributes you could attribute all of those "good" things they were all done in the disguise as to the agenda, which is to convert people from what they believed.

I didn't think I hand waved over anything. These are serious things. As far as the "agenda" to convert....well, that is an amusing and faulty way to look at most Christian motivations. I keep hearing on this forum that we Christians do things simply to avoid hell. Actually, some of us actually love God and want to do what he says to please him...not to get something for ourselves. Christians cannot impress God by converting people or helping the poor. That would be a pretty low view of God. It is about relationship, not law. I doubt you can understand that. So I would love to convert someone, but it would be akin to one beggar showing another where some food is....not some moralistic war against sin or a mindless law keeping adventure. Those are man's way of doing religion.


How are these atheist nations? They were communist nations. Communist killed for political reasons. Many who did the killing were religious communist. Should we attribute the 9-11 million Jews victimized by the Nazis to a Christian nation? It makes as much sense.

.

But thats just it. Reading the bible tells an entirely different teaching than what is taught (the whole Peace and love carrying a lamb on your shoulders BS). Kind of like the whole "Muslim is the religion of peace". by all rights your are supposed to go and kill those who do not believe and bring them before your gods feet.

No Christian is supposed to go kill unbelievers and force conversions to God. Either you are speaking about radical Islam, or getting your OT (God dealing with a theocracy) mixed up with your NT (God dealing with individuals.) I agree that more people should read their bible to see what it actually says. I hear so much misinterpretation around here it is no surprise that people don't want God. I wouldn't want the God I hear about either. But that has little to do with the God of the Bible. I cannot address Islam very well, so I will stay away from commenting on it.

[arkirk]

It is possible that some of us don't want to waste our time on a worn out myth when we have real humanistic tasks ahead of us. Religion has caused untold suffering of the human race. It only survives by suppressing the truth of our own experiences in favor of myth and authority.

One of the earlier posters pointed out that man is really good at hating. Religion has been helpful in promoting this phenomenon by presenting "reality" as a dichotomous war between "good" and "evil." The preachers all want you to hate "evil." They preach hatred of the devil and his minions. Part of Satan's minions are the "evil" atheists who Satan has blinded to the God myth. They are to be despised. They are an abomination in the sight of god. How far do I have to travel to find the olde fire and brimstone "religion" from my own home...oh about two blocks. It's been that way every place I have lived in America. If man is good at hating his fellow man, religion has provided a modus operandi for that hatred. Let's let this thing called religion die a death that is LONG LONG LONG OVERDUE.

[two wheels]

No Christian is supposed to go kill unbelievers and force conversions to God. Either you are speaking about radical Islam, or getting your OT (God dealing with a theocracy) mixed up with your NT (God dealing with individuals.) I agree that more people should read their bible to see what it actually says. I hear so much misinterpretation around here it is no surprise that people don't want God. I wouldn't want the God I hear about either. But that has little to do with the God of the Bible. I cannot address Islam very well, so I will stay away from commenting on it.

The almighty shield and deadly sword in one, the only problem is nobody knows how to use it properly.

[Elfman]

It is possible that some of us don't want to waste our time on a worn out myth when we have real humanistic tasks ahead of us. Religion has caused untold suffering of the human race. It only survives by suppressing the truth of our own experiences in favor of myth and authority.

One of the earlier posters pointed out that man is really good at hating. Religion has been helpful in promoting this phenomenon by presenting "reality" as a dichotomous war between "good" and "evil." The preachers all want you to hate "evil." They preach hatred of the devil and his minions. Part of Satan's minions are the "evil" atheists who Satan has blinded to the God myth. They are to be despised.


Well, if I thought religion was a watse of time then I wouldn't be spending time here exchanging with you. I agree that man is good at hating....I just don't see it as Jesus' fault. We seem to all agree, to varying degrees, that man can twist anything...a religion, a political sysytem, whatever to achieve his/her selfish ends. I wonder which worldview best describes the reality of the state of man's heart. That man's is corrupt (not entirely, but pervasvely) is an accurate description of the biblical view of man.
As to your comments on "good" vs "evil" and hating people....I cannot comment on the experience you have had with the fire and brimstone people, but certainly Jesus teaches us not to hate each other. In fact, Jesus only seemed to really hate the religious leaders. Maybe you are more Christ-like than you know. :)


"Originally Posted by WVIncagold
How are these atheist nations? They were communist nations. Communist killed for political reasons. Many who did the killing were religious communist. Should we attribute the 9-11 million Jews victimized by the Nazis to a Christian nation?"

WVIncagold,
This is a bit disingenuous a response. Atheism is the standard view of all these communist countries. They have outlawed religion consistently, and to this day persecute Christians. The leaders (Mao, Stalin, Hitler) all thought highly of Nitsche and his atheistic ideals. You are just plain wrong here and maybe want to rethink your views. Comunism is a political concept and ought to be compatible with religion....but all these communist countries outlaw it....ever wonder why? Hitler is obviously a slightly different case since he wasn't interested in Communism as opposed to a dictatorship, but he still abhorred religion. You don't actually think he was Catholic do you?
A wise man said that when people stop believing in something, it is the time they will believe anything. I think that has merit.

[two wheels]

"Originally Posted by WVIncagold
How are these atheist nations? They were communist nations. Communist killed for political reasons. Many who did the killing were religious communist. Should we attribute the 9-11 million Jews victimized by the Nazis to a Christian nation?"

WVIncagold,
This is a bit disingenuous a response. Atheism is the standard view of all these communist countries. They have outlawed religion consistently, and to this day persecute Christians. The leaders (Mao, Stalin, Hitler) all thought highly of Nitsche and his atheistic ideals. You are just plain wrong here and maybe want to rethink your views. Comunism is a political concept and ought to be compatible with religion....but all these communist countries outlaw it....ever wonder why? Hitler is obviously a slightly different case since he wasn't interested in Communism as opposed to a dictatorship, but he still abhorred religion. You don't actually think he was Catholic do you?
A wise man said that when people stop believing in something, it is the time they will believe anything. I think that has merit.

Saying that atheism was being used by the communist countries in the same way that the monarchies of Europe used the church to control the uneducated masses is incorrect not to mention impossible.
Everybody who attempts to make this connection, fail to understand the enlightened political view of Europe in the 19th century. The Sectarian violence that raged in Europe since the Protestant reformation was fresh in people’s minds. The violence was still in living memory, and the animosity between the two was still high. The monarchies of Europe were using the notion of the Divine Right of Kings for many centuries. The new republics not only rebelled against the Monarchies but also they turned away from the monarchs allies the religions that kept the masses under control. France for example adopted secularism in the late 19th century.
The communist countries didn’t want or need the churches controlling influence over the people. The Ideals of communism replaced the superstitions of the church. How could it be possible for atheism to replace the controlling influence of the church? There are no laws or doctrine for the atheist to say you can’t defy the law of the atheist.


You don't actually think he was Catholic do you?
A wise man said that when people stop believing in something, it is the time they will believe anything. I think that has merit.

Well let’s hear from the man himself;
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people.
-- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933,
I chose this quote because of the Vatican concordat. Unlike the communist leasers Hitler needed religious doctrine for control of the masses. Although he was born catholic and never denounced his catholicism, many German Christians predominantly protestant, saw Hitler as second only to martin Luther. Being a weak and unimaginative leader Hitler needed an enemy to present to the people to blame for their troubles. He found the answer in Martin Luther’s prejudice against the Jews chronicled in the book (the Jews and their lies). Hitler noted Martin Luther as one of Germany’s great reformers. Luther advocated the burning of synagogues and schools, the deportation of Jews, and other measures that closely resemble the actions taken by the Nazis.
This is the weirdest thing about Hitler’s religious allegiances, this Austrian catholic was able to unify over 28 regional protestant churches into one Reich church. Many church leaders could see compatibility between Christian doctrine and Nazi ideals.

[Elfman]

Saying that atheism was being used by the communist countries in the same way that the monarchies of Europe used the church to control the uneducated masses is incorrect not to mention impossible.
Everybody who attempts to make this connection, fail to understand the enlightened political view of Europe in the 19th century. The Sectarian violence that raged in Europe since the Protestant reformation was fresh in people’s minds. The violence was still in living memory, and the animosity between the two was still high. The monarchies of Europe were using the notion of the Divine Right of Kings for many centuries. The new republics not only rebelled against the Monarchies but also they turned away from the monarchs allies the religions that kept the masses under control. France for example adopted secularism in the late 19th century.
The communist countries didn’t want or need the churches controlling influence over the people. The Ideals of communism replaced the superstitions of the church. How could it be possible for atheism to replace the controlling influence of the church? There are no laws or doctrine for the atheist to say you can’t defy the law of the atheist.

When a government acts to deny people the right to worship a God, that government is acting on a set of principles. You can call it a political set of principles(Communism) but that would be to suggest that no communist government could tolerate religion, which of course, doesn't logically follow. Communism is not inherently contradictory to religion. So what set of principles would be what is used to deny people religious freedom of any kind? Secularism might be one set of principles that could explain it. But it is hard to say that secularism would be against worship of God as much as just ignoring it. Atheism, however, fits perfectly. It has the secularist/naturalist philisophical underpinnings combined with (as suggested by its very name) its being contradictory to belief in God.
So if you are more comfortable saying that Stalin killed people out of a desire for political power, I would agree.....but you must also explain why this was coupled with a persecution of the church. You cannot compartmentalize one from the other.



Well let’s hear from the man himself;
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people.
-- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933,
I chose this quote because of the Vatican concordat. Unlike the communist leasers Hitler needed religious doctrine for control of the masses. Although he was born catholic and never denounced his catholicism, many German Christians predominantly protestant, saw Hitler as second only to martin Luther. Being a weak and unimaginative leader Hitler needed an enemy to present to the people to blame for their troubles. He found the answer in Martin Luther’s prejudice against the Jews chronicled in the book (the Jews and their lies). Hitler noted Martin Luther as one of Germany’s great reformers. Luther advocated the burning of synagogues and schools, the deportation of Jews, and other measures that closely resemble the actions taken by the Nazis.
This is the weirdest thing about Hitler’s religious allegiances, this Austrian catholic was able to unify over 28 regional protestant churches into one Reich church. Many church leaders could see compatibility between Christian doctrine and Nazi ideals.
I love it...you quote the guy who lied repeatedly (see: appeasement/Poland) talking about how he used religion to control the masses when anyone with a history text knows that it was nationalistic fervor that was the main tool. You really think he did it all in the name of God? Yes, he set up the Jews as less than human, yes, he did "negotiate" with the church to keep them out of things, etc....but you do not see Hitler's philisophical motivations having anything to do with religion. Martin's anti-semetic remarks were a convenient tool. Hitler may have not denounced his Catholicism, but he hardly followed the teachings of the church or the principles taught by Christ...whose main ministry at the time WAS TO AND FOR JEWS, OF WHICH HE WAS ONE. Did Hitler ever preach that people ought to love Jesus? Ha.
Nitsche was a great influence on Hitler (and Stalin and MAO, and Saddam Hussein if you care)....the atheistic ideal was foundational to all these people's beliefs that they were the supreme authority. Their belief in themselves as highest authority, greatest dictator, gave them the right (in their minds) to do whatever, to whomever they pleased. Not religious piety. They then used all the tools at their discretion....religion, nationalism, political activity, to enforce their desires. Their authority was equal to their will. A true God fearer would not have that problem as there is always a supreme authority higher than themselves. I am not inferring that Christians cannot act like despots either, but when they do, they are not following Christianity. But when an atheist like Stalin kills indiscriminately for political reasons, he is acting consistently with a worldview that establishes no higher authority over him.
Note: I am not saying that atheists cannot have morals....most are "decent" people by human standards.

[arkirk]

My point has been completely missed. We are here to live our lives, have our experiences, and hopefully find something in life to value. This religion thing is more than a mere diversion. It is a LIE. There have always been charlatans among us. Stalin was also a liar and murderer. Rejecting God as a possibility does not automatically confer upon us Stalin's mentality. Christianity is whatever the charlatan of the day says it is. There is no way to even begin to guess whether Jesus was deluded or sane or anything else. It is a story so twisted by liars and profit seekers and power hungry madmen with so many revisions and deletions as to be completely beyond the pale of believability. The more time we spend on this crap, the longer we ignore our own very real experiences and allow our cognitive processes to be interfered with. Got it?

Christianity has killed more people and held the human race back for all too long. I am concerned that it has an effect on the brains of people who may even eventually want to reject the system. The problem is that it is a SYSTEM OF BRAINWASHING. Repetitive prayer, kneeling, confessing, and in some sects (also true of Muslims), self abuse, self abasement, etc. These are all part of a planned domination of your thinking for the purpose of exploiting you. Repetitive telling you that there is only one truth...that of the Bible or Koran or Torah can over time have an effect on you that you will not be entirely aware of.

If the most high can burn cities, drown the unfaithful (and also the innocent animals)...if your "most holy god" can do this crap, then you have ideas that have that kind of source rattling around in your head and you don't even know it. I have had arguments with Jehovah's Witnesses and our arguments about God have come to reduction of their arguments to absurdity. When they lose, they just give us reasoning and say "Get thee behind me Satan!" So we are not dealing with reasonable people here.

No doubt Stalin had a Christian upbringing. It does not just drop away when you adopt some new idea. Christianity is a whole lot of ideas...some good and some bad. There are parts of Ecclesiates that seem reasonable. We however do not need this to guide us. We need to take charge of our own brains and sharpen our cognitive processes for humanistic purposes and quit this constant blather about God.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Crap.
Discussion descended into stalinohitlerpologetics as usual. There should be a rule against it. It's worn out and booooooooooooring.

[Sabine Grant]

As a reminder from MF&P guidelines :

* Hyperbolic or overly emotive language and imagery, such as unwarranted comparisons to Nazi Germany, are generally discouraged and will be deleted if they appear to serve no purpose other than to inflame the discussion. (Rule 1a, 6b)"

However in the context of this thread, it is my evaluation that historical refs to Nazi Germany and the Stalinian regime are acceptable.
Sabine Grant, Moderator MF&P.

[Elfman]

My point has been completely missed. We are here to live our lives, have our experiences, and hopefully find something in life to value. This religion thing is more than a mere diversion. It is a LIE. There have always been charlatans among us. Stalin was also a liar and murderer. Rejecting God as a possibility does not automatically confer upon us Stalin's mentality.
I never claimed that to be the case. In fact I said that atheists can have morals just to offset this assumption.
You seem to think that we need to find "something in life to value." I feel that I have found that in a loving God who does amazing things. It has given me a purpose and perspective that has given my life context and meaning. I wish you well in trying to find meaning apart from a larger plan. If there isn't one and it is a "LIE", then you are left constructing your own meaning. Good luck with that. I have not seen it done well yet. Nitsche was probably the best at it from an atheist perspective and he eneded up a brokendown insane person. Maybe you are smarter than him.


Christianity is whatever the charlatan of the day says it is. There is no way to even begin to guess whether Jesus was deluded or sane or anything else. It is a story so twisted by liars and profit seekers and power hungry madmen with so many revisions and deletions as to be completely beyond the pale of believability. The more time we spend on this crap, the longer we ignore our own very real experiences and allow our cognitive processes to be interfered with. Got it?

Please give some examples here. Who are these liars and profit seekers who have twisted everything? The Catholic church? Good thing we can check early fragments and codices of scripture to make sure any deletions distortions they may have added were undone. To take your claim seriously, I will need some proof.


Christianity has killed more people and held the human race back for all too long. I am concerned that it has an effect on the brains of people who may even eventually want to reject the system. The problem is that it is a SYSTEM OF BRAINWASHING. Repetitive prayer, kneeling, confessing, and in some sects (also true of Muslims), self abuse, self abasement, etc. These are all part of a planned domination of your thinking for the purpose of exploiting you. Repetitive telling you that there is only one truth...that of the Bible or Koran or Torah can over time have an effect on you that you will not be entirely aware of.
Here is a non-christian book that may help demonstrate how the church in the dark ages actually saved Western civilization.
http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493
The protestant work ethic, family values, and help for the poor have all been great things for the advancement of the human race. I think there are reasons to believe certain things. Faith does not need to be a blind leap.



If the most high can burn cities, drown the unfaithful (and also the innocent animals)...if your "most holy god" can do this crap, then you have ideas that have that kind of source rattling around in your head and you don't even know it. I have had arguments with Jehovah's Witnesses and our arguments about God have come to reduction of their arguments to absurdity. When they lose, they just give us reasoning and say "Get thee behind me Satan!" So we are not dealing with reasonable people here.

I cannot speak for the JW's, but have I retorted "get behind me?" You wont hear it from me. You have raised the problem of evil, which is a legitamite question, but not part of this discussion so I will not attend to it. But going off on tangents is generally not a good method to winning an argument. Are you now trying to prove God does not exist? This discussion is about whether or not religion is a good thing.


No doubt Stalin had a Christian upbringing. It does not just drop away when you adopt some new idea. Christianity is a whole lot of ideas...some good and some bad. There are parts of Ecclesiates that seem reasonable. We however d