Atheism IS NOT a belief system

robindch

> You eventually grew up and managed to make up your own mind didnt you?

Yes, I did. But most don't because fear has been drilled into them since childhood about what will happen to them if they do decide to abandon the church and all its ways.

Remember how bookies operate -- they're not interested in the odds one way or another, but simply in manipulating them so that regardless of the outcome, they'll be out in front when the dust has settled. Religion is the same -- creating enough hopes and fears in enough people so that they'll indoctrinate enough kids (or convert enough friends) to keep the whole ragtag show on the road. It's worked so far and I've little doubt that in people who aren't aware of, or don't care, how it all this happens, it'll continue to work.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote:

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

The point was one robinach made “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.”, but in hindsight I may be misreading that it implied that people don't know what to think since they're indoctrinated. Its a nonsense and is equally applicable to either side when it comes to mud slinging.

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

No I totally understand the idea behind church and state. Its just I feel that if a society as a whole wishes to pursue religious education, then it is their democratic right to do so. Maybe you'd explain why it should be separate when at the moment the majority either want or are not bothered about the current education climate. I am assuming in this case people still are allowed to purse whatever religion or non-religion they wish and would have the option to ‘opt-out’ of the class if it was not a general one on religions.

Which religion does the state support?

It endeavours to supports all, but may naturally concentrate its resources on the religion that are practised by the majority. Which is the case at present.

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?

Certainly not, which why state funding is available to schools of different faiths and where not applicable they may receive alternative religious education where religious differences occur. I attended a state school in the 80’s and people had the option to opt-out of catholic orientated classes.

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.

The state doesn’t have support everyone, it just has to support those, which is realistically can on a practical and financial basis.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Its a nonsense and is equally applicable to either side when it comes to mud slinging.

Yes, I got that, I'm asking what dogma or propaganda is being used to indoctrine atheists (I assume atheists are the otherside).

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Its just I feel that if a society as a whole wishes to pursue religious education, then it is their democratic right to do so.

Well assuming they live in a democracy, yes it is.

But the the whole point of democracy is the expression of ideas. We don't live in a country with proper seperation of church and state. I don't like this fact. A lot of people don't like this fact. It is therefore my responsibility, and the responsibility of others, to convince the general masses that living in a society that does have proper seperation of church and state is a better system to live in.

That is kinda hard to do without discussion and the expression of new ideas isn't it?

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Maybe you'd explain why it should be separate when at the moment the majority either want or are not bothered about the current education climate.

The logic is that it should be seperate for the reason that an individuals right to religious freedom, no matter what the religion, should be gurrenteed by the state, and that this cannot be done if the state picks one religon, even the religon of the majority, over another to offically support.

Every citizen in a state should be equal. If the state is bias to one religion in particular over the rest it is unfair on followers of the other religions or people who have no religion.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I am assuming in this case people still are allowed to purse whatever religion or non-religion they wish and would have the option to ‘opt-out’ of the class if it was not a general one on religions.

That is the argument used by the religious right in the States, that anyone who doesn't like something like prayer in school can simply "opt-out".

But that again is unfair. Why should anyone have to opt-out, have to exclude themselves from something they are supposed to be guarenteed by the state? Every child should be given the same education, have the same education as their friends and class-mates. Forcing a child to remove themselves from the majority group in a situation like the "opt-out" class is considered by many to be damaging and unfair. You are singling out those who are not part of the majority religon as different, and making them remove themselves. Now one the grand scheme its not going to lead to mass suicide from depressed kids, but it is still unfair, and still oppressing the rights of the individual to education free from religoius dogma.

Making someone removed themselves from the rest of a group or be forced to participate in a religous act they do not believe in is not something that should be sanctioned by the state. It is the state forcing a particular religion onto another person. The state is the state of all people, not just those who follow a particular religion.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

It endeavours to supports all, but may naturally concentrate its resources on the religion that are practised by the majority.

Firstly, it doesn't and it can't endeavour to support all religions, that is nonsense. There are simply too many The only way to support all religons fairly is to support no religion.

Secondly, why concentrate any "resources" on any religon in the first place. Why should the majority religion be force on the minority? Just because Catholics are a majority in Ireland that is no reason why Hindus should have to go to Catholic schools. The fairest way is to make schools have no religon then anyone can go to any school without it interfering with their religion.

The majority had no right to force, through the state, its religion on the minority even if they are the majority. It is unnecessary and unfair.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I attended a state school in the 80’s and people had the option to opt-out of catholic orientated classes.

Again, see the argument against the fairness of the "opt-out" idea.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

The state doesn’t have support everyone, it just has to support those, which is realistically can on a practical and financial basis.

The state then chooses a religion to support. Even if that religon is the biggest in the country, it is still choosing a religion at the cost of all the other ones. And as I said before, just because a religion is a majority in a country doesn't mean it has the right to force that religon, through the state, onto others.

Rev Hellfire

On the topic of athiest propaganda I'll conceed the point, simply because I don't know if there is any. It was the arrogance of the the perceived statement about a believers ability to 'makeup their minds', maybe the idea that religious people are all simple lead by the nose is an example of this propaganda.

I totally agree with you that you should attempt to influence public opinion to gain a seperation of state and religion. But the rub is so to would I support those who would campaign in a the states for example to breakdown that very same seperation.

The state then chooses a religion to support. Even if that religon is the biggest in the country, it is still choosing a religion at the cost of all the other ones. And as I said before, just because a religion is a majority in a country doesn't mean it has the right to force that religon, through the state, onto others.

The state is expression of the will of the majority and as such can force its opinions on others. It does this all the time with law. I don't see the difference here. Are you saying that just because we can't support the wishes of minorities we should ignore the will of the majority ?

I suspose the difference we have is I dont believe that you have a right to a seperation of church and state, were as maybe you do.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I suspose the difference we have is I dont believe that you have a right to a seperation of church and state, were as maybe you do.

Its not that I have the right to seperation of church and state.

What I (should) have the right to is that the state is not bias against my religion, or my sex, or my race, or my culture. Just because I am in the minority doesn't change that.

The only fair way of doing this with relation to religion is that the state supports no religions. Then no religion is given unequal preference, and no religions are discriminated against by the state. The status of all religions in the state becomes equal no matter what the size

Saying that the state reflects the majority is twisting this around.

The state reflects the opinion of the majority when deciding what to do, but that doesn't mean that the majority cannot decide that the individual rights of a person are the important bit. Just because we are a very Catholic country doesn't mean we cannot or should not impliment a seperation of church and state. The USA is a very Christian country, but they have the seperation, not because the majority don't want to follow their religion, but because they believe in the principles of keeping religion equal for all people, that all civil rights matter not just those of the majority.

Of course in a democracy you have to convince the majority your theory is correct, which I what I hope will happen in Ireland sooner rather than later with relation to church and state.

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

Just because we are a very Catholic country doesn't mean we cannot or should not impliment a seperation of church and state. The USA is a very Christian country, but they have the seperation, not because the majority don't want to follow their religion, but because they believe in the principles of keeping religion equal for all people, that all civil rights matter not just those of the majority.

The US may have their seperation of church/state, but I'd take our educational system over theirs any day.

You speak about the "alienation" of students who opt-out of religion class and how it's unfair. Perhaps across large swathes of the US kids might be outcast by communities that revolve around the bible, but not here. In fact we've had numerous Irish school-goers posting here to say that religion classes are open and pressure-free. I was schooled in a catholic boys school and the day a son is born to me I'll be signing him straight up.

Unlike you, I'm threatened very rarely by religion in the Ireland of today.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

In fact we've had numerous Irish school-goers posting here to say that religion classes are open and pressure-free.

But that is a move to seperation, a move I welcome.

I think the problem here is people aren't really noticing what is happening because everything happens so slowly, not that that is a bad thing. But things are a lot better in religous schools than they were in my fathers time, or my grand-fathers, preciesely because schools have moved away from the old fashion style of R.E.

I still think more can be done. For everyone I know who had no problem with religion in school I know someone who did.

The argument against the "opt-out" system isn't that it is going to create a group of socially scared outcast or anything. It is simply that it is unfair. It might cause problem with only a handful of people, but then that isn't an argument to allow it

staple

I'm slightly confused here, said Columbo. Is it that you don't believe anything or is it that you are not systematic in your beliefs?
Judging by the vehemence of posts, the former seems unlikely. Judging by the elevation of reason as a means to knowledge, so does the latter.
If you don't belief in anything, where do you get your morals from? Are there some principles you adhere to? If so, why?

staple

staple wrote:

I'm slightly confused here, said Columbo. Is it that you don't believe anything or is it that you are not systematic in your beliefs?
Judging by the vehemence of posts, the former seems unlikely. Judging by the elevation of reason as a means to knowledge, so does the latter.
If you don't belief in anything, where do you get your morals from? Are there some principles you adhere to? If so, why?

I think it's more the idea that you can't say there's definitely one common belief among atheists as there would be for religions - there's just the lack of belief in god. Anything else is personal and can't be named as part of "atheism" really.

Dades

staple wrote:

If you don't belief in anything, where do you get your morals from? Are there some principles you adhere to? If so, why?

What does belief have to do with morals? Morals should come from compassion or conscience, not from fear of retribution from a deity.

To say that society cannot survive without morals is true, to say that morals can not exist without belief, is not.

Rev Hellfire

staple wrote:

where do you get your morals from?

From a knowledge of what is right and wrong or to be more accuracy; what is socially accepted as right and wrong.

A belief in something does not require a supernatural element.
For a change we'll use the beasts defination of the word.

staple

The Atheist wrote:

What does belief have to do with morals? Morals should come from compassion or conscience

Can you tell me what compassion and conscience are? Why should morals come from them?
Rev. Hellfire, if you could be invisible would you still obey the law? If not, would there be some other moral imperative?

Rev Hellfire

Almost certainly if I could be invisible I can say chances are I'd break the law if it suited me. But you see that doesnt effect morals, I'd know what I would be doing is wrong. Its just I wouldn't care making me and my actions immoral.

staple

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Almost certainly if I could be invisible I can say chances are I'd break the law if it suited me. But you see that doesnt effect morals, I'd know what I would be doing is wrong. Its just I wouldn't care making me and my actions immoral.

I don't understand why you say it doesn't affect morals. It sounds like you'd do me harm tomorrow if it benefitted you and you could get away with it.

Rev Hellfire

And assuming I would. How does that effect morals?

REDZ

staple wrote:

Can you tell me what compassion and conscience are? Why should morals come from them?
Rev. Hellfire, if you could be invisible would you still obey the law? If not, would there be some other moral imperative?

Compassion
an understanding of the other, empathy, the ability to put yourself in others shoes.
Conscience
how we view ourselves and our actions, gulit, pride etc, perhaps the best candidate for the soul in an athiestic worldview.
ok so i'm not Rev Hellfire but if i was invisible i would obey all the laws i agreed with. a few years ago i spent some time on a small island with no garda's at all, and everybody got on grand, cos everybody knew each other, that sense of community made random acts of crime more difficult to perpetrate, most likley because of compassion and conscience.
Morals come from these because they are a very good internal guide regarding how people want to be treated.
regarding imperatives, Kants old categorical imperative still stands, and is very similar to Jesus "do onto others" imperative.

staple

Rev Hellfire wrote:

And assuming I would. How does that effect morals?

I'd say such a person would be immoral and have to be avoided.

Rev Hellfire

exactly. I totally agree with you.
You don't need any supernatural element to tell you what is right and wrong. And it is from this knowledge that your morals are derived.

staple

REDZ wrote:

Morals come from these because they are a very good internal guide regarding how people want to be treated.
regarding imperatives, Kants old categorical imperative still stands, and is very similar to Jesus "do onto others" imperative.

Aren't these beliefs? Doesn't your morality spring from these beliefs?
How is your conscience formed? I guess from parents etc. telling you what's right and wrong. Why did your parents tell you certain things were right or wrong?
Why do you treat people the way they want to be treated? Why accept the authority of Kant with his categorical imperative?

staple

Rev Hellfire wrote:

exactly. I totally agree with you.
You don't need any supernatural element to tell you what is right and wrong. And it is from this knowledge that your morals are derived.

I'm finding you very hard to understand. By morals I mean basically a sense of right and wrong and acting accordingly: is that your understanding of the word?
Why bring in the supernatural?
Are you saying we all have an innate sense of right and wrong like we all have an innate sense of smell?

Rev Hellfire

I believe that to a degree we have an innate understanding of right and wrong.
Or rather as social creatures we have an innate ability to coexist within groups. These groups by their nature define a set of acceptable standards which people refer to as morals and are further codified into law.
Which is why what is immoral in one society may not be so in another one and visa versa.

The reference to a supernatural element came from your idea that a belief system was required and in particular one which had a supernatural element to it.

REDZ

staple wrote:

Aren't these beliefs? Doesn't your morality spring from these beliefs?
How is your conscience formed? I guess from parents etc. telling you what's right and wrong. Why did your parents tell you certain things were right or wrong?
Why do you treat people the way they want to be treated? Why accept the authority of Kant with his categorical imperative?

I don't think they are beliefs, more states of mind that respond to changing circumstances, eg: you have differing levels of compassion, depending on many different factors.
Partly formed from parents, partly an internal thing, we just know certain things are right and wrong such as killing, robbing from the poor etc..
I treat peole the way i want to be treated, (try to anyway)
I accept Kants imperative and similar christian imperatives because they are rational.

Dades

staple, since you're so full of questions, why don't you tell us where your moral guidance comes from?

Playboy

I think the point that is being made is that all our morals comes from belief, whether that belief is religious or personal.

Scofflaw

Playboy wrote:

I think the point that is being made is that all our morals comes from belief, whether that belief is religious or personal.

As far as I'm aware, all the evidence points to mankind being 'inherently' moral - that is, a lot of basic morality seems to be an evolutionarily selected set of built-in responses, topped off with culturally learned morals and then some personal ones.

It's perfectly possible to have morals intellectually derived from your beliefs (a good example is vegetarianism) but not to feel them at a gut level (so, eating meat doesn't feel bad, although you 'know' it is).


cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> I think the point that is being made is that all our morals
> comes from belief, whether that belief is religious or personal.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't believe that morality comes from belief. Although there is a very strong, and very successful, religious tendency to say that it does (or must), with consequent benefits to the religion.

If I choose not to clobber somebody bigger than me, that's not a moral decision on my part, but a sensible one. If I choose to clobber somebody smaller than me, well, they might know somebody bigger than me, and they in return might clobber me. What the religious refer to as "morals" are usually quite easy to work out, in terms of biological cost, if you assume that people live in social networks and that they have memories.

Try googling for "human behavioral ecology" or "evolutionary psychology" for further details on the many evolutionary reasons for being "nice".

Playboy

robindch wrote:

> I think the point that is being made is that all our morals
> comes from belief, whether that belief is religious or personal.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't believe that morality comes from belief. Although there is a very strong, and very successful, religious tendency to say that it does (or must), with consequent benefits to the religion.

If I choose not to clobber somebody bigger than me, that's not a moral decision on my part, but a sensible one. If I choose to clobber somebody smaller than me, well, they might know somebody bigger than me, and they in return might clobber me. What the religious refer to as "morals" are usually quite easy to work out, in terms of biological cost, if you assume that people live in social networks and that they have memories.

Try googling for "human behavioral ecology" or "evolutionary psychology" for further details on the many evolutionary reasons for being "nice".

Morality isnt really to do with being nice, its more about what you consider right and wrong. What you consider as right or wrong is influenced by a host of factors such as soicetal norms, religious beliefs, the position you hold in society, genetic influences (aka evolutionary psychology) etc. Peoples morality can often change depending on the situation they are in. Take for example how business people can behave in a ruthless fashion when at work but would never apply the same ethic to their social or home life. That is because the business person believes the business world to be a different arena with a different set of rules. Belief is a key factor in morality. Most atheists in my experience would consider themselves humanists and would derive their morality from the ideals of that branch of thought e.g. the dignity and worth of the individual and an ability to determine what is right and wrong using rational thought. In my view Humanism is a belief sytem, maybe not in the same way as religion but all the same a belief system.

staple

I think maybe there is a semantic point about 'belief' I haven’t grasped.

I would assume that you act (or fail to), as a conscious person because you have a reason for or against. You work somewhere, study something, say things to people, make all kinds of choices for reasons of which you are conscious. I don’t think they are all just instinctive; I imagine you don’t contradict yourself, and so your choices come from some common principles. I’d like to know what those principles are. You BELIEVE those principles to be important (that is why I use the word belief).

If evolution has given us our moral code, is there then a problem of consciousness? We choose to follow that code or not, don’t we? Do we choose rationally and freely or are we driven by our genes in all our decisions?

staple

staple wrote:

I think maybe there is a semantic point about 'belief' I haven’t grasped.

I would assume that you act (or fail to), as a conscious person because you have a reason for or against. You work somewhere, study something, say things to people, make all kinds of choices for reasons of which you are conscious. I don’t think they are all just instinctive; I imagine you don’t contradict yourself, and so your choices come from some common principles. I’d like to know what those principles are. You BELIEVE those principles to be important (that is why I use the word belief).

But they don't come from atheism as a formal set of beliefs...

staple

bluewolf wrote:

But they don't come from atheism as a formal set of beliefs...

With this I can agree.
Atheism is not a belief system. Atheists seem to believe lots of things in a rather unsystematic way. Atheists probably believe inthings dominant in 21st century western society, like liberalism, habeas corpus, liberty, free speech, toleration, democracy, sexual equality, progress, the scientific method, the ego, individualism, capitalism, the rational faculty. It also seems to be pretty common to look to evolution to explain anything else. All of these things are, presumably, common sense, the way slavery was common sense to the Romans and Christianity was common sense to the Elizabethans.

This is all pretty worrying for the rest of us. They seem to believe that it is 'natural' to act as selfishly as possible; and the only limit on selfishness is what we can get away with. I find that depressing, since we can expect them to do everything they can get away with to exploit others for their own benefit, and we can expect no altruism from them.

But, from the contributions here, there seems to be no underlying unifying idea supporting their miscellany of beliefs. It's pretty worrying for them, since they think their world view comes from scientific rationalism but they themselves are not rationally driven, they are driven by their evolutionary instincts. Such a mindset seems doomed to collapse under its self contradiction.