Atheism IS NOT a belief system

Zombrex · 08-04-2006 11:05am #1

This is a branch of a thread about Dawkins that went into an interesting discussion about the morality of an Atheist system such as Communism, and how it is no better than a religious morality system.

The argument goes that if we are going to hold up religion systems/countries as causing oppression, suffering in the world and blame religion, then it is hypocritical to not hold atheist system that also caused suffering in the world.

An example given was Communism. Communism forced atheism onto the people of the USSR. Religion was banned and oppressed. Basically you had to be an atheist or face trouble from the state (any history buffs, this is a gross simplication but for the purposes of the thread it will do).

My argument was that people are looking at the wrong thing. Atheism is not the same as religion. Religion is a moral belief system. If you remove religion you may become an atheist, but you do not replace your belief system with the atheist belief system since there is no such thing. You replace your belief system with something else.

In the case of the USSR atheism didn't replace religion. Communism replaced religion. Communism is a belief system. It has its own ideas on morality and society. It structures the morality of those who live under it.

One of the beliefs of Communism is that religion is bad for the state and that everyone should be athiest.

So really in the USSR you can't talk about religion being replaced with atheism because it didn't really work like that. Atheism doesn't replace anything by itself. Religion was replaced with Communism, a very flawed and dangerous (in my view) system or laws and beliefs.

To sum up atheism by itself is not a religion, its not even a belief system. So comparing the two is flawed.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 08-04-2006 11:09am

Wicknight wrote:

To sum up atheism by itself is not a religion, its not even a belief system. So comparing the two is flawed.

I'd agree there, if anything it is a disbelief system, an extension of the 'Innocent until proven guilty' principle

Playboy · 08-04-2006 11:34am

It really is very simple.

Ever hear of the saying 'Guns dont kill people, People kill People'. Any belief system or disbelief system can be corrupted by people. If Atheists banded together and decide to rid the world of deluded religious fools, then you are right, it would not be the fault of athiesm. But the last time I checked murder was against the 10 commandments so you cant blame religion for people who go out and murder in the name of religion.

Zombrex · 08-04-2006 11:46am

Playboy wrote:

It really is very simple.

Ever hear of the saying 'Guns dont kill people, People kill People'. Any belief system or disbelief system can be corrupted by people. If Atheists banded together and decide to rid the world of deluded religious fools, then you are right, it would not be the fault of athiesm. But the last time I checked murder was against the 10 commandments so you cant blame religion for people who go out and murder in the name of religion.

And for every place where murder is prohibited it is justifed in 10 other places.

That is one of the major issues atheists like Dawkins (and myself) have with deriving morality from religous texts, they contradict the hell out of each other and you end up with an un-Godly mess.

You can find a passage in the Bible or Qu'ran to justify anything you like...

A right-wing Christian in the US can find a passage in the Bible to justify walking around with a "God Hates Fags" t-shirt. A judge in Nigeria can find a passage in the Qu'ran to justify stoning to death a young girl who had sex with a married man.

Do you want to try and argue using the religious belief system that both these things are wrong or immoral? You will find yourself going up against a brick wall, because as far as both these people are concerned their religion (and therefore what is right and true) justifies there actions. God justifies their actions.

Telling them they are using a corrupted version of the true morality in something like the Bible is point because there is no true morality in the Bible Just opinions and positions. It is not something to use as a basis for societies morality because it is a contradictory mess

robindch · 08-04-2006 11:57am

> In the case of the USSR atheism didn't replace religion. Communism
> replaced religion. Communism is a belief system. It has its own ideas
> on morality and society. It structures the morality of those who live under it.

I would disagree slightly here -- communism operates in the same way as religions do, by providing an inerrent, unquestionable ideological support for the local administrators. Once you've managed to have one of *those* systems in place, then your position as a power-broker is secure, because you can simply liquidate anybody who disagrees with you, while having to provide no more justification than saying that the dead were guilty of "incorrect thinking" (one of the chilling phrases which was used during the period).

Communism didn't really tend to harp on about "morality" any more than other societies of the time.

In fact, some people (me, for example

) suspect that the same kind of people who make good fodder for the religious industries are quite likely to make equally good communist party members, as the same ability to accept absolute authority, willingly and unquestioningly and for one's own selfish benefit, is central to both.

Which reminds me of a joke which used to circulate in Russia during communist times, which said that there were only three virtues available to any Russian person: honesty, intelligence, and membership of the Communist party. But only two at any one time.

Playboy · 08-04-2006 12:01pm

Wicknight wrote:

And for every place where murder is prohibited it is justifed in 10 other places.

That is one of the major issues atheists like Dawkins (and myself) have with deriving morality from religous texts, they contradict the hell out of each other and you end up with an un-Godly mess.

You can find a passage in the Bible or Qu'ran to justify anything you like...

A right-wing Christian in the US can find a passage in the Bible to justify walking around with a "God Hates Fags" t-shirt. A judge in Nigeria can find a passage in the Qu'ran to justify stoning to death a young girl who had sex with a married man.

Do you want to try and argue using the religious belief system that both these things are wrong or immoral? You will find yourself going up against a brick wall, because as far as both these people are concerned their religion (and therefore what is right and true) justifies there actions. God justifies their actions.

Telling them they are using a corrupted version of the true morality in something like the Bible is point because there is no true morality in the Bible Just opinions and positions. It is not something to use as a basis for societies morality because it is a contradictory mess

There is no true morality full stop. When you wake and realise that, maybe you will see that people will find any excuse to justify the horrible acts they commit. If there was no religion there would be just as much suffering in the world today if not more considering all the humanitarian work religion inspires

Zombrex · 08-04-2006 12:06pm

Playboy wrote:

There is no true morality full stop.

That is the whole bloody point :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Religion says there is, that their morality is the true morality full stop. And if you believe in the religion you must follow this true morality. You should not argue against it, criticise it or attempt to update or improve it because it comes from God and as such is true and infalable.

That is Dawkins objection to religion. Bloody hell, it sounds like you agree, so what are you arguing about?

Playboy · 08-04-2006 12:12pm

Wicknight wrote:

That is the whole bloody point :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Religion says there is, that their morality is the true morality full stop. And if you believe in the religion you must follow this true morality. You should not argue against it, criticise it or attempt to update or improve it because it comes from God and as such is true and infalable.

That is Dawkins objection to religion. Bloody hell, it sounds like you agree, so what are you arguing about?

I'm arguing about the fact that Dawkins unjustly labels religion 'The Root of all Evil'. Human nature is the root of all evil and nothing else.

robindch · 08-04-2006 12:16pm

> you cant blame religion for people who go out and murder in the name of religion.

What a completely clueless thing to say. You admit that religion provides a justification for some people to murder others, but then go on to say that the religion can deny any responsibility for what people do in its name? What kind of "morality" is that?

Zombrex · 08-04-2006 12:29pm

Playboy wrote:

I'm arguing about the fact that Dawkins unjustly labels religion 'The Root of all Evil'. Human nature is the root of all evil and nothing else.

Er, that is a pointless statement, everything humans do is by definition part of human nature.

Slavery is part of human nature. Does that mean slavery isn't immoral, but human nature is? Does that mean someone shouldn't argue slavery is immoral and wrong?:rolleyes:

Religion is a system of defining and controlling morality and belief. It is a very flawed and dangerous system in Dawkins opinion (and mine).

If you don't agree with that argue that point, instead of abstract jibberish.

Zombrex · 08-04-2006 12:33pm

Playboy wrote:

When you wake and realise that, maybe you will see that people will find any excuse to justify the horrible acts they commit.

Yes but these excuses should not be valid. You shouldn't be allowed stone someone to death because it says so in the Bible or Qu'ran. Thats the point.

You seem to be assuming that religion is never used as a justified excuse for immoral behavour. It is used all the time for immoral behaviour, used and justified.

Playboy · 08-04-2006 12:45pm

robindch wrote:

> you cant blame religion for people who go out and murder in the name of religion.

What a completely clueless thing to say. You admit that religion provides a justification for some people to murder others, but then go on to say that the religion can deny any responsibility for what people do in its name? What kind of "morality" is that?

Of course it can deny repsonibilty on the grounds that it is a corruption of what the religion actually teaches.

Playboy · 08-04-2006 12:52pm

Wicknight wrote:

Er, that is a pointless statement, everything humans do is by definition part of human nature.

Slavery is part of human nature. Does that mean slavery isn't immoral, but human nature is? Does that mean someone shouldn't argue slavery is immoral and wrong?:rolleyes:

Religion is a system of defining and controlling morality and belief. It is a very flawed and dangerous system in Dawkins opinion (and mine).

If you don't agree with that argue that point, instead of abstract jibberish.

I really don't understand this. Evil originates from human beings not from religion. Labeling religion as the root of all evil is ridiculous. We are the root of all evil not some institution we have created.

Zombrex · 08-04-2006 12:55pm

Playboy wrote:

I really don't understand this. Evil originates from human beings not from religion. Labeling religion as the root of all evil is ridiculous. We are the root of all evil not some institution we have created.

And through religious dogma we put in place the systems for great evil. Do you not agree?

I mean, do you even get the objections Dawkins has with religion? You seem to be completely ignoring his (and my) points. It is getting rather annoying

Playboy · 08-04-2006 12:57pm

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but these excuses should not be valid. You shouldn't be allowed stone someone to death because it says so in the Bible or Qu'ran. Thats the point.

You seem to be assuming that religion is never used as a justified excuse for immoral behavour. It is used all the time for immoral behaviour, used and justified.

I don't think religion is justified in killing people no more than I think the U.S Government is justified in killing people. Thats my moral perspective, obviously lots of people in religious countries and the U.S will disagree with me. On what grounds can I contradict them?

Playboy · 08-04-2006 12:59pm

Wicknight wrote:

And through religious dogma we put in place the systems for great evil. Do you not agree?

I mean, do you even get the objections Dawkins has with religion? You seem to be completely ignoring his points

No I don't. Religion isnt all bad. It can be a great power for good too. Any system human beings put in place is going to be corrupted for immoral ends. Its just the way of the world. Call it natural selection

Zombrex · 08-04-2006 1:03pm

Playboy wrote:

No I don't. Religion isnt all bad. It can be a great power for good too. Any system human beings put in place is going to be corrupted for immoral ends. Its just the way of the world. Call it natural selection

Ok, what about the main point then -

Moral belief systems based around religion have the concept that the morality is derived from a supernatural god, who decides what is right and wrong. This morality is fundamental and unarguable. God is not wrong. Therefore this morality must be followed and can not be challanged.

Do you think this is a good system to decide what morality systems society should use?

pH · 08-04-2006 1:18pm

Playboy wrote:

No I don't. Religion isnt all bad. It can be a great power for good too. Any system human beings put in place is going to be corrupted for immoral ends.

This just depends on your perspective you say :

Religion starts with good intentions but then get corrupts by evil and immoral men.

All the evidence suggests that when you scratch the pious veneer on any religous "good" (charity and selflessness) you very quickly see the self-serving motives behind it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position_%28book%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa#Controversy
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

So you could equally argue

Religion never has any good intentions, it was invented as a cynical ploy to control the masses by making them give you goods and power in this life, against vague promises and threats for the 'next' life you never have to deliver on

Playboy · 08-04-2006 1:31pm

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, what about the main point then -

Moral belief systems based around religion have the concept that the morality is derived from a supernatural god, who decides what is right and wrong. This morality is fundamental and unarguable. God is not wrong. Therefore this morality must be followed and can not be challanged.

Do you think this is a good system to decide what morality systems society should use?

I don't personally subscibe to it Wicknight but many people do. It's not for me to say that they are wrong.

Playboy · 08-04-2006 1:32pm

pH wrote:

So you could equally argue

Religion never has any good intentions, it was invented as a cynical ploy to control the masses by making them give you goods and power in this life, against vague promises and threats for the 'next' life you never have to deliver on

You could argue anything you wanted pH. Whether you can justify it is another matter entirely.

Zombrex · 08-04-2006 1:42pm

Playboy wrote:

I don't personally subscibe to it Wicknight but many people do. It's not for me to say that they are wrong.

WTF does that mean? Sounds like a cop out to avoid discussing the issue.

So you think its bad system but you don't think you should point that out?

Does that extend to other morality systems? Would you point out that slavery is wrong? Or forced marriage? Or a cast system?

Playboy · 08-04-2006 1:44pm

Yes i think its a bad system but people are able to make up their own minds whether they want to believe in it or not just like you and I were. You can reason with people and try to get them to see your point of view but apart from that you cant really do anything except respect the beliefs of the people.

Zombrex · 08-04-2006 1:51pm

Playboy wrote:

You can reason with people and try to get them to see your point of view

Which is exactly what everyone here is doing. Except you

Playboy wrote:

but apart from that you cant really do anything except respect the beliefs of the people.

No one was suggesting anything beyond discussion ...

Or did I miss something? I don't think anyone, including Dawkins, has done an Ann Coulter ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity")

Playboy · 08-04-2006 2:45pm

Wicknight wrote:

Which is exactly what everyone here is doing. Except you

Eh, why?

Wicknight wrote:

Or did I miss something? I don't think anyone, including Dawkins, has done an Ann Coulter ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity")

Dawkins doesnt discuss, he preaches. He isnt interested in anything that a religious person has to say.

Rev Hellfire · 08-04-2006 2:46pm

As to if atheism is a belief or not we can argue until the cows come home. The problem is that neither party view the question from the same perspective. You will never get for example a Christian to accept that Christian churches are self serving, the very argument that you use that they can’t see it due to the propaganda they receive is equally applicable to you. You see them in such a manner since you also have been indoctrinated in such a manner. And round and round we go.

To me atheism like religion is an irrelevancy to people’s daily lives. Most people simply do not care nor does it affect them that much.
To me the most worrying aspect of atheism/humanities is funnily enough the notion of the separation of church and state. While I agree it’s certainly something people should campaign for if they feel strongly for, I disagree that it is a right. True, a non-religious education should be available, but while the majority wish to see religion as part of the state education system certain advocates would simply argue that they know better and its for the better good that their opinion stands before those of the common whole. A mirror in my mind to most extreme religious groupings and their thinking on such subjects. They both work on the belief that they know best and the rest of the herd just haven't seen the light.

Rev Hellfire · 08-04-2006 2:56pm

opps double post sry.

robindch · 08-04-2006 3:14pm

> [Playboy] Yes i think its a bad system but people are able to make up their own
> minds whether they want to believe in it or not just like you and I were.

You are assuming that people are able to make up their minds in the first place, or even realise that there's anything to make up their minds about. For myself, I had a traditional irish education in the 70's and 80's and don't recall one person saying throughout the lot that I had any choice in the matter of belief. I was either in, or I was out and on my own in the cold, and ultimately damned.

> you cant really do anything except respect the beliefs of the people.

Wrong. One must respect the rights of people to hold whatever beliefs they want, but there is no call, nor should there be, to respecting the belief itself, whether it's something benign like the existence of an immortal sky-pixie, or the malign conviction that "unbelievers" can be murdered at will.

> He isnt interested in anything that a religious person has to say.

Completely wrong again. He, like many here, is very interested in what religious people have to say because what they -- Ted Haggard, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and that nutty jewish-islamic convert spring to mind -- say is frequently threatening, usually intransigent, and in the era of the technological means to commit mass murder without too much trouble, can ultimately be fatal to a great number of people, as New York found out on the bright morning of 11th September, 2001.

Playboy · 08-04-2006 4:23pm

robindch wrote:

You are assuming that people are able to make up their minds in the first place, or even realise that there's anything to make up their minds about. For myself, I had a traditional irish education in the 70's and 80's and don't recall one person saying throughout the lot that I had any choice in the matter of belief. I was either in, or I was out and on my own in the cold, and ultimately damned.

You eventually grew up and managed to make up your own mind didnt you? Most religous people are adults and afaik it is a persons right to bring up their child religiously if they choose.

robindch wrote:

Wrong. One must respect the rights of people to hold whatever beliefs they want, but there is no call, nor should there be, to respecting the belief itself, whether it's something benign like the existence of an immortal sky-pixie, or the malign conviction that "unbelievers" can be murdered at will.

What about respecting the fact that religous people for the most part are sane rational adults. How about us respecting them by not calling them deluded and their belief system 'The Root of all Evil'.

robindch wrote:

Completely wrong again. He, like many here, is very interested in what religious people have to say because what they -- Ted Haggard, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and that nutty jewish-islamic convert spring to mind -- say is frequently threatening, usually intransigent, and in the era of the technological means to commit mass murder without too much trouble, can ultimately be fatal to a great number of people, as New York found out on the bright morning of 11th September, 2001.

Oh this is fun .... I'm completely wrong becuase you quote me out of context.

Zombrex · 08-04-2006 6:14pm

Playboy wrote:

Eh, why?

Why? I've no idea you will have to ask yourself that.

Playboy wrote:

Dawkins doesnt discuss, he preaches. He isnt interested in anything that a religious person has to say.

What do you base that on? I seem to remember him listening to everything that teh religous people were saying, even the crazy ones.

Zombrex · 08-04-2006 6:23pm

Rev Hellfire wrote:

the very argument that you use that they can’t see it due to the propaganda they receive is equally applicable to you.

Which propaganda would that be? Seriously, i'm asking. I am not aware of the atheist propagranda, but then I'm sure you will say that is because I'm indoctroned. Please explain

Rev Hellfire wrote:

True, a non-religious education should be available, but while the majority wish to see religion as part of the state education system certain advocates would simply argue that they know better and its for the better good that their opinion stands before those of the common whole.

If that is what you think then you have missed the entire point of the principle of seperation of church and state.

It is not to raise God-less atheists in school. It is not because people believe that having no religion is better than having religion.

It is because of a very simple question :- Which religion does the state support?.

Might seem like a no brainer in Ireland, the answer would be Catholism. But what do the children who are Islamic, or Hindu, or Jews do in a Catholic state run school? Are they supposed to just shut up and take it?

The concept of seperation of church and state came not from atheists but from religious followers who felt the state was being unfair to them. They decided that the only fair way to allow all religions equal freedom is to say that the state cannot sponsor any of them.

The principle behind sepeartion of church and state is that the state cannot, and should not, pick a religion to offically support. Religion should be a personal choice, and no state body should support one religion over the other.

The only way to achieve this is to seperate church and state completely. The alternative is to have the state sponsor every religion which is completely unworkable since there are hundreds.

Zombrex · 08-04-2006 6:30pm

Playboy wrote:

Most religous people are adults and afaik it is a persons right to bring up their child religiously if they choose.

Please tell me you get the irony of that statement.

Playboy it is a persons "right" only in countries that have seperated the church from the moral and civil rights of the individual.

The right to practice any religion you want is only guaranteed because we as a society don't draw our legal and civil rights from any particular religion. That is a damn good thing too. If we did you would have the right to follow the religion you are told to follow.

If you lived in a a fundamentalist country that did draw its legal moral and civil rights from a particular religion you probably would have no such right to. The Christian being sentenced to death in Afganistan springs to mind.

Atheism IS NOT a belief system

Comments