TomboyMom

Atheists are frequently put in the position of having to defend their morality against the prejudice that belief in god and his commandments is the basis for a non-subjective morality. One of the fears that goddists seem to have about atheism is that it is an amoral position, or at a minimum opens the adherent to a completely subjetive and therefore presumptively hedonistic morality.

However, I think that religionists, especially godists, are in the morally questionable position.

First, there is a relationship between morality, honesty and truth. It is more moral to tell the truth than to lie, and this duty goes beyond merely stating what one believes to be true. There is an additional duty to do some checking into the basis for that belief. Or, as Thomas Huxley said, "agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative creed," nor indeed as a creed of any kind,
except insofar as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle which is as much ethical
as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that if is
wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can
produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts; and, in
my opinion, it is all that is essential to agnosticism. That which agnostics deny and repudiate as
immoral is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence. "
Since these religions are founded on unprovable and false statements with no basis, they are inherently immoral. This foundation causes immoral behavior, such as intolerance toward opposing views, even oppression of those who hold them, forcing one's views on others through violence, and so forth. Even the inherent threat that if you don't believe as the proponent does you will be punished by being sent to hell is inherently threatening, violent and immoral.

A second moral principle which many godists violate all the time is the golden rule to (in the Jewish formulation) not do unto others as we would not want done unto us. No one wants other people's views shoved down their throat, but many religionists do this all the time and consider it as a good deed in their belief system, if their religion advocates proslytizing.

Another moral problem with religion is that it abdicates moral responsibility to god and those claiming to state god's views. It relinquishes the responsibility of the individual to make their own moral determiniations. So when god's representatives tell them to do something evil (burn women at the stake, drive airplanes into skyscrapers, drink poison kool-aid...) they do it. Their beliefs make them extremely prone to moral errors.

Objectively, religionists are no more ethical in their behaviors than atheists, and many would argue that they are less so. Certainly, we're not trying to pass laws barring them from holding office, and it has commonly been observed that religions and belief in religion has been responsible for millions of murders.

Thoughts?

christ-on-a-stick

Hi TomboyMom, In my opinion, this is one of the most, if not *the most* dangerous thing about religion.

History continues to show us that this way of thinking inspires the most heinous acts that humans perpetrate upon their fellow man, usually with full confidence that they are doing God's Work.

Hitler believed that he was doing God's Work (although some claim that he used his religiosity merely as a smokescreen and didn't actually believe this, his own words taken at face value indicate otherwise and he is certainly not the first to pursue genocide believing it to be righteous.)

The 9/11 suicide hijackers, although some have characterized them as "cowards" were in my mind anything BUT cowardly - they were tragically infused with the courage to end their own lives as well as countless others in the fervent and unshakable belief that they were holy warriors and would be rewarded by Allah in the afterlife.

Men like Jim Jones of the People's Temple and David Koresh were so delusionally certain of their divine inspiration that they too were willing to die (and take others with them) in the face of what they saw as "persecution" (so much for the oft-trotted out protest of Xians that Xianity MUST be true, otherwise why would the apostles be willing to die for something that was a lie? )

Anti-abortionists murder abortion providers and bomb clinics in their absolute certainty that they are doing God's bidding.

To complicate matters further, individuals such as Andrea Yates, in the grip of mental illness, do horrible things such as drowning their children for reasons such as "ensuring their salvation before the age of accountability". Funny thing is that while Xians are quick to say "well, she was obviously mentally ill", they don't see anything wrong with the story of Abraham being tested by God to see if he would be willing to murder his own child, and his willingness to murder his own child was a *good* thing. How exactly do they KNOW that Andrea Yates WASN'T inspired by God (or Satan?) After all, they do believe that such entities are real and capable of communication with humans. But no, when faced with the true tragic absurdity of such a scenario, they are quick to embrace the "mental illness" scenario. As if God didn't fully sanction and *command* the murder of children in their own holy book.

The list could go on and on.

There is nothing so dangerous as a man (or woman) who absolutely believes that he or she is acting in accord with the wishes of an all-powerful deity, and therefore fully righteous in their action no matter how bloody. I see this as being equally dangerous and frightening in the cases of both Osama bid Laden and George W. Bush. Both believe that they are "divinely appointed" by their God to carry out "justice", even if that means spilling the blood of innocents. (OBL sees them as "infidels" and Dubya, "collateral damage").

luvluv

Want me to make a list of genocidal actions made in defense of atheistic beliefs?

People have a tendency to kill for CAUSES.

Simply doesn't matter if that cause is God or communism or democracy or capitalism or slavery or race or.... whatever.

And within the world of the cause, the cause always determines morality. There is no seperate moral appeal for the person for whom communism is the First Cause. To such a person what is good means what is good for communism. Ditto for all other causes. In fact, in general the religious impulse in man as often as not RESTRAINS these impulses to kill for a cause. Inasmuch as God and his laws and desires are seen to be pre-eminent over all other causes, the concept of God often restrains the overzealous and often murderous activites of rival causes. Many slave owners, for example, abandoned slave ownership because it conflicted with their concept of God.

Keep in mind that, as appealing as this objection is, it is essentially totally wrong. Religious people tend to have as good or better a grasp on what is right and what is wrong. There have not been as many people killed in religious wars as there have been in wars fought over land or over capitalism and democracy, or over the simple lust for power. There really isn't any evidence that religion is any more dangerous than greed or xenophobia in terms of causing violent conflict. Furthermore, religious people of all stripes are as capable of recognizing evil and of being horrified by it as everyone else. Muslims do not blindly follow in lock-step with the religious fanatics of their religion. Many devout Muslims manage to disagree with Bin Laden and his lot and do so OUT OF their commitment to their faith, not in spite of it.

christ-on-a-stick

Hey luvluv , I for one would luv for you to do just that.

Partially because I know how right fast you'll be exposed for confusing atheistic causes with communist, socialist and other "ist" causes that have JACK to do with lack of belief in an invisible-sky-daddy.

But go for it, please. Hit me with your best shot... fire away

Seraphim

My remark : Making your own assumptions about religions and theists based on Atheists' views is like asking the Cat if it like the mouse.

First, there is a relationship between morality, honesty and truth. It is more moral to tell the truth than to lie, and this duty goes beyond merely stating what one believes to be true.

......
......

Since these religions are founded on unprovable and false statements with no basis, they are inherently immoral. This foundation causes immoral behavior, such as intolerance toward opposing views, even oppression of those who hold them, forcing one's views on others through violence, and so forth.

My reply : This is true IF you are just making remarks on Abrahamic religions and beliefs ... instead, you are making remarks on ALL religion and theists (which include religions and teachings).

A second moral principle which many godists violate all the time is the golden rule to (in the Jewish formulation) not do unto others as we would not want done unto us. No one wants other people's views shoved down their throat, but many religionists do this all the time and consider it as a good deed in their belief system, if their religion advocates proslytizing.

My reply : You and so many other Atheists are doing the same thing here and many other places on the Net, you drive cars with Atheists number plats, wear T-shirts with logos with will upset others and so many other things else. Is that mean you are just being a Christian (or Jewish or whatever) or just being Human?

Another moral problem with religion is that it abdicates moral responsibility to god and those claiming to state god's views. It relinquishes the responsibility of the individual to make their own moral determiniations. So when god's representatives tell them to do something evil (burn women at the stake, drive airplanes into skyscrapers, drink poison kool-aid...) they do it. Their beliefs make them extremely prone to moral errors.

My reply : Tell that to Abrahamic followers.

Objectively, religionists are no more ethical in their behaviors than atheists, and many would argue that they are less so. Certainly, we're not trying to pass laws barring them from holding office, and it has commonly been observed that religions and belief in religion has been responsible for millions of murders.

My reply : No country ever bars others from holding a office, wealth, power etc just because he is an Atheists.
Whether a person has morality or not however, is a business of him and his God, just as your opinion is business of yours and your group (and your conscious ... IF you believe in such).

It could be more beneficial if you, TomboyMom do not generalize all religions and teachings just because you had some tough time with Abrahamic religions (namely Christianity). There are some good ones out there which promote peace (inner and outer) and good will.

christ-on-a-stick

FALSE, Seraphim. Very unfortunately false.

Several states in the good-ole-gawd-fearin'-USofA do JUST THAT.

Crazy, ain't it?

Seraphim

FALSE, Seraphim. Very unfortunately false.

Several states in the good-ole-gawd-fearin'-USofA do JUST THAT.

Crazy, ain't it?

My reply : I said Country, not states.

Yes, it is crazy simply to stop a person to have something he or she wish to have all because he or she don't follow the same teaching as the mass ...

And I persume that whoever did it consider such acts will bring those who are not in the same teachings as they are closer to God. Crazy indeed.

And I thought USA is land of freedom and opportunity ...

Godbert

Good points tomboy, although some are kind of christianity specific.
I especially agree with your first point - if people are lying to themselves constantly I think it is likely for many people that that will lower their moral threshhold against lying.
The constant repeating of obvious lies to others is the main reason for me that I say a person with high morals is more likely to remain/become atheist.([i]edited: said complete opposite first[i])
There are also the prison statistics, where atheists are about a hundred-fold underrepresented.

luvluv

Lauri:

Firstly, I find it odd that your "vacation" only takes you away from one thread....

But at any rate:

Well, technically speaking there is no atheist cause, if atheism is truly simply the lack of religious beliefs. But my point remains: religious causes are no more and no less dangerous than any other causes if the cause becomes the First Priority in the life of any person or community.

christ-on-a-stick

luvluv, HA! You wish... I only got back TODAY... never fear, I will be returning to Porn et al... but gimme some time to catch up, why don'tcha? Well, pardon my french but DUH!!! Point being that for most religious folk "The Cause" is the First Priority. The Biggest, Most Important. Do I err in this assumption???