The Trouble with Atheism

joe_chicken

Anybody see this program on C4 on Monday night?

Although the presenter (Rod Liddle) was quite biased against atheists (... I probably should have coped that from the title ) it was a good watch and echoed alot of what I thought

Main points:
1) Atheism has become a religion onto itself (i.e. stubborn in it's rejection of other peoples beliefs and it's absolute faith in it's own)
2) Atheism has no moral steering (i.e. it makes the example of Eugenics and how it's a 'logical' progression from Darwin's evolution)
3) That science and religion aren't mutually exclusive (i.e. they interviewed a prominent physicist in England who had gone on to become a vicar)


The biggest problem with it, was it was too short and didn't explain all of it as well as it could have.

Also, the way they dealt with Dawkins was a little sensational. They were purely out to debunk his theories although he seemed to agree with alot of what the program was saying.

For example (not having read any of Dawkins, or even heard of him before this, excuse my ignorance) the idea of a "Mean"(?) is a pretty well thought out argument. It states that religion is like a virus that evolves and changes to suit it's surroundings. This idea seems pretty acceptable to me, I don't think it takes anything away from religion, I think most of us (even hard line believers) can accept that not all of religion is cold hard fact.

But the program went out of it's way for about 5 minutes to try and debunk this fact. Talking to a microbiologist, who pointed out that this is not how viruses work, and even at one point try to prove that evolution is itself about to be debunked...

But other than that, a good watch if it comes around again.

Dades

Sounds interesting, if somewhat frustrating.

Dawkins does put himself in the firing line using terms like "virus" and "delusion" in relation to religion.

Did they actually call atheism "stubborn in it's rejection of other peoples beliefs"? Makes me wonder at what point a belief becomes stubborn. Or is any belief with conviction, stubborn...

For the record Dawkins theory involves "memes".

joe_chicken

Memes, eh?!... I knew I was spelling it wrong

But yeah, the whole idea of atheism itself being a religion was a pretty big part of it....

Most of the atheists they interviewed were pretty hardline to be honest (well compared to Dawkins anyway, who seemed quite reasonable...)

They interviewed one guy who was handing out leaflets in America and had a big banner saying something along the lines of "All your Gods are fake" and even had a t-shirt with a figure throwing the Christian cross in the bin... for me, people like that definitely treat atheism as a religion.

robindch

> Anybody see this program on C4 on Monday night?

I watched about half of the last fifteen minutes, in between rustling up some dinner.

The parts that I saw were not just deliberately provocative in the way that Rod Liddle usually is, but deliberately misleading. One example, just after I flicked on the telly, Liddle was going on about the ten commandments that Dawkins had come up with -- weak, wishy, washy things he said -- while the camera panned down the page, with a line about sex lives drifting past in the background. Firstly, the "ten commandments" Dawkins lists in his book were pulled from a website (as the text makes clear; they're not Dawkins' own), secondly, the bit that the camera filmed were not the listed "ten commandments", but actually some of Dawkins' additions on the following page. In other words, Liddle was deliberately misleading people about what Dawkins had written.

Elsewhere, in between pushing some lamb from the night before around a frying pan, I could have learned that atheism was a religion (er, no it's not), that Stalin's and Hitler's crimes were motivated by their "beliefs" in atheism, that people could not have an ethical code unless it was written in a book written by a sky-god. And so on and so on, tired cliché followed tired cliché, with inadequate responses from most of the atheists they interviewed, and Liddle marching after they'd said their bit, to rubbish them anyway.

I'm glad I missed the first 45 minutes and sorry that a friend phoned to let me know that this low-end, uninformed and misleading drivel was on telly. Liddle -- who's produced useful stuff in the past -- should be ashamed of himself.

.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

Main points:
1) Atheism has become a religion onto itself (i.e. stubborn in it's rejection of other peoples beliefs and it's absolute faith in it's own)
2) Atheism has no moral steering (i.e. it makes the example of Eugenics and how it's a 'logical' progression from Darwin's evolution)
3) That science and religion aren't mutually exclusive (i.e. they interviewed a prominent physicist in England who had gone on to become a vicar)

As robindch points out the program seemed to have rather frustrating views of what atheism is and is not.

joe_chicken

The treatment of Dawkins was poor, I agree... Liddle was definitely trying to provoke a stronger reaction from him asking at one stage "Do you 100% deny that there is a God?" and Dawkins replying "I believe in God as much as I do in unicorns or Fairies"...
While every other Atheist he interviewed denied the existence of God straight out...

I also think he made it quite clear that Stalins and Hitlers crimes were no way directly related to the ideas of Darwin. More the fact that they used these teachings (along with others) to justify, at least in some way, their actions (to deny this in the case of Hitler is just blind...)

(p.s. the last 15 minutes were probably the worst)

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote:

As robindch points out the program seemed to have rather frustrating views of what atheism is and is not.

I don't agree.

I think it had a pretty clear idea of what atheism is (i.e. no agnostics please )

If anything, it took this definition a little too far, mostly interviewing those that were fundamentalist atheists (:)... for want of a better expression) and therefore cementing the programs point on how this stubborn, arrogant dismissal of peoples beliefs is just as bad as the religion it's replacing

Jimoslimos

Yeah I found myself getting infuriated sometimes by the presenter's line of questioning, particularly to Dawkins, who for his hardline stance came across as the most honest and intelligent of all interviewed. Although it probably should be noted that the title of the program was "the Trouble with Atheism" so there was bound to be a negative bias. Still as annoying as it was at times the level of debate wasn't dragged down to people talking about "miracles":rolleyes:

robindch

> I think it had a pretty clear idea of what atheism is (i.e. no agnostics please)

Yes, you're right. The problem was, as above though, that the idea of atheism that he was talking about has nothing to do with any atheism that I'm aware of. He built up an image of this threatening, non-existent thing, then rubbished it.

Certainly, some people's individual beliefs that there is no god are probably as strong as some other people's individual beliefs that there is a god (though the stats show that the latter outnumber the former by at least twenty to one). Neither are there large-scale institutions propagating atheism or any large-scale political movement advocating it (or very much at all, really), so Liddle's referring to atheism as a "religion" is really quite disingenuous.

He could have asked around here for a more informed opinion

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

I don't agree.

I think it had a pretty clear idea of what atheism is (i.e. no agnostics please )

If anything, it took this definition a little too far, mostly interviewing those that were fundamentalist atheists (:)... for want of a better expression) and therefore cementing the programs point on how this stubborn, arrogant dismissal of peoples beliefs is just as bad as the religion it's replacing

Well the idea that atheism is devoid of morality is technically correct. But it doesn't mean that atheists are devoid of morality. We just don't get our morality from sky gods or thousands of year old books.

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote:

Well the idea that atheism is devoid of morality is technically correct. But it doesn't mean that atheists are devoid of morality. We just don't get our morality from sky gods or thousands of year old books.

So where do you get your morals from? Science? Yourself?

And if the answer is yourself... where did these morals originate from? your parents? your parents parents?... where did they get their morality from?

Atheists who come from a Christian background often mistake their inherited Christian morals as just common sense or their own enlightened morality... (me included... and I use Christians as an example, I'm sure it applies to most religions, I just don't have experience with them)

But it is hard to know how moral we would be without the strong religious influence that permeates our history.

Fallen Seraph

Well the Greeks were big into their morality and their deities were more or less amoral (Zeus rewarded the good and punished the bad arbitrarily, or as the story dictated, but he didn't say anything about what made good or bad).

Anyway, I think that religion actually has relatively little say in what is or isn't moral, it's society that does that (for example the strict homophobia practised by many fundamentals, while not being too pushed about the eating of seafood). Religion just gives morality an easy basis to justify everything.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

So where do you get your morals from? Science? Yourself?

From culture, from reasoning, and from evolution.

joe_chicken wrote:

Atheists who come from a Christian background often mistake their inherited Christian morals as just common sense or their own enlightened morality

I would counter that the early Christians confused their inherited morality as messages from God.

I get my morality from the same place the early Jews and Christians got their morality (see above), but I don't confuse it as coming from a sky god. Morality comes from humanity, it always has done.

joe_chicken wrote:

But it is hard to know how moral we would be without the strong religious influence that permeates our history.

I would imagine we would be exactly as moral as we are now. Or another way to look at the question is what did religion provide as a moral framework that would not originate anyway.

joe_chicken

Firstly, I have no idea of Greek Gods, so unfortunately I haven't the ability to comment on your first point...

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Anyway, I think that religion actually has relatively little say in what is or isn't moral, it's society that does that (for example the strict homophobia practised by many fundamentals, while not being too pushed about the eating of seafood).

These days (like the 2 contentious issues you pointed out) I'd agree with you...

But things in religion manifest for a reason, like Dawkins' "Memes" suggest, religion fills gaps needed to be filled... We (being mankind) must have needed moral guidance at some point and if we did then, why not now?

Now that we have a better understanding of the universe, do we have a better understanding of morality?

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Religion just gives morality an easy basis to justify everything.

Nope. You've lost me.

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote:

From culture, from reasoning, and from evolution.

What? You don't think religion has anything to do with them?

Wicknight wrote:

I would counter that the early Christians confused their inherited morality as messages from God. I get my morality from the same place the early Jews and Christians got their morality (see above), but I don't confuse it as coming from a sky god. Morality comes from humanity, it always has done.

Your morality has been shaped by reasoning, evolution and culture... these things have been directly or indirectly effected by religion and religious thinking for thousands of years... you can't escape it... unless you've been dropped in from Mars?

Wicknight wrote:

I would imagine we would be exactly as moral as we are now. Or another way to look at the question is what did religion provide as a moral framework that would not originate anyway.

That's a pretty big assumption... I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but have you ever read Lord of the Flies?

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

What? You don't think religion has anything to do with them?

It depends on what you mean by "has anything to do with it". Religion is part of culture, and as such is part of the system that passes on culture. That doesn't mean that morality comes from a higher power and passes through the religious teachings of a particular religion (as the religious followers might believe).

Religion is a product of the morality in society, not the cause of it. It would be very dangerous to think like that because it lends weight to the idea that if you remove religion then this source of morality is gone and we will all be immoral, which isn't true. The morality will still be there, it is inherent in humanity. It will just be presented and organised in a different manner.

joe_chicken wrote:

Your morality has been shaped by reasoning, evolution and culture... these things have been directly or indirectly effected by religion and religious thinking for thousands of years

I would see it as the other way round, that religion has been directly effected by them. Religion is the end product, not the source. It is one of the ways that humans have chosen to organise and structure cultural ideas and moral frameworks. But it is not the only way. Most modern moral frameworks are secular in nature, such as most western laws and things like the UN Declaration on Human Rights.

joe_chicken wrote:

That's a pretty big assumption... I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but have you ever read Lord of the Flies?

I have, but I think it was an absence of society that was presented as the reason for the decent into anarchy, not specifically religion. Religion is one way humanity has in the past chosen to organise the moral frameworks of society. It is not the only way, and removing religion does not mean you abandon any hope of organising moral frameworks in society. You just don't do it with a sky god.

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote:

Religion is a product of the morality in society

I think this is the key point we disagree on.

For me it's not as simple as society created religion...

it's more like a chicken and egg situation...

Society created religion and religion created society

(A feedback loop if you will )

Zillah

joe_chicken wrote:

Your morality has been shaped by reasoning, evolution and culture... these things have been directly or indirectly effected by religion and religious thinking for thousands of years... you can't escape it... unless you've been dropped in from Mars?

I'm sure morality has been directly and indirectly affected a little bit by tomatoes over thousands of years, doesn't mean people who refuse to eat tomatoes are amoral. Their morality is just the kind that hasn't required tomatoey influences.

Are you a Catholic? I'd propose to you that the Catholic Church is a grossy immoral institution:

- No woman priests.
- Gay people go to hell.
- Enforced celibacy.
- Touching children.
- Covering up said touching of children.
- Forbids condoms leading to AIDS exploding across Africa.
- Sits on trillions of euro in treasure and refuses to use it for the good of humanity.

And if we include those last few thousand years you were reffering to:

- The Crusades. (Often referenced but for good reasons. Essentially the Pope ordered Christendom to send their armies to retake the Holy Land, like Antioch and Jerusalem. They then slaughtered tens of thousands in the name of God. For example, when the Christians took Jerusalem they slaughtered all the Muslims that didn't escape. The real reasons for the crusades were financial and political, ordered by the Pope.)
- The inquisition. (Tortured, humiliated and murdered countless Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, queers and Jews.)
- Witches. Thousands burned alive.



So no, we can be moral without the despicable influence of religion thank you. Religion might try and lay claim to morality, but ultimately its just high jacking a very natural (evolved) human trait.

Zillah

joe_chicken wrote:

Main points:

I also have to demolish these, sorry.

1) Atheism has become a religion onto itself (i.e. stubborn in it's rejection of other peoples beliefs and it's absolute faith in it's own)

Oxymoron. Because of the nature of Atheism any given atheist cannot be attacked because of the beliefs or actions of any other. In no way do I subscribe or conform to the beliefs of other Atheists. If some idiot has faith in his lack of belief in God then thats his perogative, doesn't make my sceptical disbelief, or that of others, in God any less valid.

2) Atheism has no moral steering (i.e. it makes the example of Eugenics and how it's a 'logical' progression from Darwin's evolution)

Bull. As said, morality has evolved naturally. Its built into humans. Religion just like to claim it is the basis of morality. Any two people, atheist or religious, can be moral or immoral regardless of their belief in God.

And the Eugenics point is born of ignorance. Darwinian evolution is true, the fact that some people want to use that knowledge to further their own racial ends is irrelevant to how true it is. Evolution is an observation, it doesn't say it is right or wrong or that it should be used in any way, it simply is.

And on top of all that, Evolution is fully compatible with most Christianity these days and belief in evolution has zero to do with Atheism. Unless you're implying that Atheists are generally more educated than the religious but lets not go there shall we?

3) That science and religion aren't mutually exclusive (i.e. they interviewed a prominent physicist in England who had gone on to become a vicar)

Philosophically, yes, they are. One is sceptical investigation, the other is unfounded belief. Hence, the only way a religious person can be a scientists is by ignoring their religion.

Bull.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

I think this is the key point we disagree on.

For me it's not as simple as society created religion...

it's more like a chicken and egg situation...

Society created religion and religion created society

(A feedback loop if you will )

Well no offence but that position doesn't make a whole lot of historical sense.

How could religion have arisen before the development of common grouping, culture, language, shared experience etc etc, all the things that make up society. Even when we as a species were little more than hunter-gatherer roaming bands we still had a primitive form of society. It is hard to even visualise how religion would have developed before this.

joe_chicken

Zillah wrote:

I'm sure morality has been directly and indirectly affected a little bit by tomatoes over thousands of years, doesn't mean people who refuse to eat tomatoes are amoral. Their morality is just the kind that hasn't required tomatoey influences.

Are you a Catholic? I'd propose to you that the Catholic Church is a grossy immoral institution:

- No woman priests.
- Gay people go to hell.
- Enforced celibacy.
- Touching children.
- Covering up said touching of children.
- Forbids condoms leading to AIDS exploding across Africa.
- Sits on trillions of euro in treasure and refuses to use it for the good of humanity.

And if we include those last few thousand years you were reffering to:

- The Crusades. (Often referenced but for good reasons. Essentially the Pope ordered Christendom to send their armies to retake the Holy Land, like Antioch and Jerusalem. They then slaughtered tens of thousands in the name of God. For example, when the Christians took Jerusalem they slaughtered all the Muslims that didn't escape. The real reasons for the crusades were financial and political, ordered by the Pope.)
- The inquisition. (Tortured, humiliated and murdered countless Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, queers and Jews.)
- Witches. Thousands burned alive.

First, you make a number of assumptions:
1) That I'm religious
2) I'm stating that the influence of religion is a 100% good thing

1) I'm not religious
2) That religion was a huge influence on mankinds moral judgement (not everything to do with morality) and in the space of 100 years it has almost disappeared. Like my point above, has our greater understanding of the universe given us a better understanding of morality?

Second, can you not see the massive contradiction in your 2 points?
a) Religion has had as much influence as tomatoes in our culture
b) Religion has loads of money, killed millions of people and "touches children"

Zillah wrote:

So no, we can be moral without the despicable influence of religion thank you. Religion might try and lay claim to morality, but ultimately its just high jacking a very natural (evolved) human trait.

Again, more assumptions, not based in fact.

I thought you atheist were into fact, no?!

joe_chicken

Zillah wrote:

I also have to demolish these, sorry.

It's ok

Zillah wrote:

Oxymoron. Because of the nature of Atheism any given atheist cannot be attacked because of the beliefs or actions of any other.

Not sure what you're getting at there?

Zillah wrote:

In no way do I subscribe or conform to the beliefs of other Atheists.

Yes you do. You believe there's no such thing as God, and that people who believe in God are wrong. You share this absolute belief with every other atheist. This is what an atheist is.

Zillah wrote:

If some idiot has faith in his lack of belief in God then thats his perogative, doesn't make my sceptical disbelief, or that of others, in God any less valid.

The fact that you don't know that God doesn't exist, makes it a belief

Zillah wrote:

Bull. As said, morality has evolved naturally. Its built into humans. Religion just like to claim it is the basis of morality. Any two people, atheist or religious, can be moral or immoral regardless of their belief in God.

Again, more assumptions

Zillah wrote:

And the Eugenics point is born of ignorance. Darwinian evolution is true, the fact that some people want to use that knowledge to further their own racial ends is irrelevant to how true it is. Evolution is an observation, it doesn't say it is right or wrong or that it should be used in any way, it simply is.

I love evolution, it's a great theory... The fact they were making out that it was going to be debunked was one of my main complaints about the program.

The fact that evolution "simply is" is exactly why it can be dangerous.

I'm not too sure what you're getting at by the "born of ignorance" statement.

Zillah wrote:

And on top of all that, Evolution is fully compatible with most Christianity these days and belief in evolution has zero to do with Atheism. Unless you're implying that Atheists are generally more educated than the religious but lets not go there shall we?

If you deny the link between the writing of The Origin of Species and the rise of atheism, then you are blind

Zillah wrote:

Philosophically, yes, they are. One is sceptical investigation, the other is unfounded belief. Hence, the only way a religious person can be a scientists is by ignoring their religion.

Tell that to Michael Faraday (amongst many others)

Rev Hellfire

joe_chicken wrote:

I love evolution, it's a great theory... The fact they were making out that it was going to be debunked was one of my main complaints about the program.

I don't believe it was stated that evolution was going to be disproved, but rather that there would be a major change in science thinking on the matter. One that would undermine the basic Darwinian view that species evolve over time and cannot appear ‘instantaneously’.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

Second, can you not see the massive contradiction in your 2 points?
a) Religion has had as much influence as tomatoes in our culture
b) Religion has loads of money, killed millions of people and "touches children"

He didn't say culture, he said "morality"

I think the problem you are having is that you are finding it hard to see moral opinions forming outside of influence of church teachings. This is a sign that the church has done a very good job at making people think they are responsible for all the good moral things that we have today, and that without them we would be basically f**ked.

The reality is quite a bit different. Pretty much any of the good teachings of say Jesus or the New Testament (we will leave out the Old Testament since that is little more than an instruction manual on how to rape and pillage your neighbours and enemies) can be found in earlier philosophies.

Religion doesn't really add anything new to the discussion, it is simply a way to organise, not really invent. Which is part of the problem. Religion won't make people into good people, history has taught us that. If you are a bad person you will probably still be a bad person with religion.

joe_chicken

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I don't believe it was stated that evolution was going to be disproved, but rather that there would be a major change in science thinking on the matter. One that would undermine the basic Darwinian view that species evolve over time and cannot appear ‘instantaneously’.

Yeah, I kind of got that alright...

But the way they asked the question and the fact they didn't go into alot of detail about it, confused the issue more than anything.

Dave!

joe_chicken, where did god get his morals? He had no religious framework to go by, he just presumably started to exist and morality began at that time too. Wouldn't he need something to refer to in order to become the moralistic being that he is?

Also, which religious texts are appropriate for drawing morality from? How about the Old Testament, is that any use?

joe_chicken

Wicknight wrote:

He didn't say culture, he said "morality"

Was it not you who said that your morality was influenced (among other things) by culture?

Wicknight wrote:

I think the problem you are having is that you are finding it hard to see moral opinions forming outside of influence of church teachings.

I think the problem you are having is reading my posts.
I have no doubt that people can form moral opinions without religion.
If you dropped in from Mars, I'm sure you'd be able to make some kind of moral decisions, some good, some bad, not unfluenced by religion.
But the simple fact is - we are all descendents of people who believed in God our culture is one that is rooted in religion - whether you (or me) like it
([edit] forgot to finish sentence )

Wicknight wrote:

This is a sign that the church has done a very good job at making people think they are responsible for all the good moral things that we have today, and that without them we would be basically f**ked.

I kind of agree with you...
We won't know for sure until we have a society that is completely void of religion

Wicknight wrote:

Religion doesn't really add anything new to the discussion, it is simply a way to organise, not really invent. Which is part of the problem.

Why is this a problem? Get all the teachings of tolerance, compassion, good will, forgiveness and charity, and put them into one place... It often doesn't work out like this, but these are the ideals behind religion

(Before people jump down my kneck with Crusades and Gay marriage... I'm not just talking about Catholicism.. or even Christianity...just religion)

Wicknight wrote:

Religion won't make people into good people, history has taught us that. If you are a bad person you will probably still be a bad person with religion.

All true.

joe_chicken

DaveMcG wrote:

joe_chicken, where did god get his morals? He had no religious framework to go by, he just presumably started to exist and morality began at that time too. Wouldn't he need something to refer to in order to become the moralistic being that he is?

O no!... you're not sucking me into that argument... and since when do I believe in God?

Scofflaw

joe_chicken wrote:

So where do you get your morals from? Science? Yourself?

And if the answer is yourself... where did these morals originate from? your parents? your parents parents?... where did they get their morality from?

Atheists who come from a Christian background often mistake their inherited Christian morals as just common sense or their own enlightened morality... (me included... and I use Christians as an example, I'm sure it applies to most religions, I just don't have experience with them)

But it is hard to know how moral we would be without the strong religious influence that permeates our history.

Hmm. This question has come up fairly often, and the choices always seem to be religion or the person.

Neither is the case, surely. I would suggest that morality is an "emergent property" of human sociability.

We all (not all, but the vast majority - take "all" as qualified throughout) appear to have certain built-in preferences for fairness and equity. These have been elucidated by games theory research. We are also intelligent, and capable of remembering previous transactions.

We might assume that early "morality" was devoted to getting along with the extended family or tribe, but as humans have come together in larger and large agglomerations, morality has been extended and formalised to allow us to cope.

Humans transact with each other. To lower the "cost" of transactions, a guide to acceptable and expected behaviour - a set of rules - is beneficial. Law is commonly used, but there are many situations where law is too cumbersome, expensive, and intrusive.

Morality, then, arises from the requirement for a "guide" to expected and acceptable behaviour between people. Religion, in turn, evolves as a reinforcement mechanism for groups - prior to the invention of the modern state, and modern policing, enforcement of law (except by mutual consent or for the benefit of the powerful) was extremely limited (hence the ferocious penalties). Consider the use of gods in oaths (as in "I swear by the gods my people swear by") - what other sanction could you use, if the state cannot enforce contracts?

So, myself, I would say that religion is an outgrowth of morality, rather than the reverse.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dave!

joe_chicken wrote:

O no!... you're not sucking me into that argument... and since when do I believe in God?

Well you say that society gets its morality from religion, and religion gets its morality from holy scriptures, which are the word of god...... So if you believe your own premise then you're accepting that you believe in god.

Unless... you're arguing that society gets its morality from religion, but that god's existance isn't relevent. If this is the case then you're throwing your argument all over the place and essentially concedeing that religion mirrors existing societal norms and conventions.

Which religious texts are appropriate sources of moral-icious goodness?! I have to make sure I'm reading the right one or else I might end up stoning someone to death for working on the sabbath! :eek:

joe_chicken

DaveMcG wrote:

Unless... you're arguing that society gets its morality from religion, but that god's existance isn't relevent. If this is the case then you're throwing your argument all over the place and essentially concedeing that religion mirrors existing societal norms and conventions.

Me wrote:

Society created religion and religion created society

Like I said before, and have repeated we needed religion for a reason, have we grown out of a need for moral guidance

Is it as Scofflaw suggests and we've built up enough of a moral leadership from our state and police force

If you don't think there's any stories of moral worth from the Bible, then you haven't read enough of it.

It's interesting how quick people are to make religion into some kind of "beast" that "touches up children", steals their money, and kills poor innocent witches going around their daily business.

Tar.Aldarion

joe_chicken wrote:

So where do you get your morals from? Science? Yourself?

And if the answer is yourself... where did these morals originate from? your parents? your parents parents?... where did they get their morality from?

Atheists who come from a Christian background often mistake their inherited Christian morals as just common sense or their own enlightened morality... (me included... and I use Christians as an example, I'm sure it applies to most religions, I just don't have experience with them)

But it is hard to know how moral we would be without the strong religious influence that permeates our history.

And what about ex-christians/come from a Christian background that don't share the morals of their parents or their old religion?
Where do we get our morals from?
I think morals are different from person to person, their personality and experiences, and if any inheriting is done it is done through evolutionary psychology. Perhaps...

I don't seem to follow your points in this thread at all. I don't see how atheism is a belief. I am an agnostic that is atheistic to any Earthly religion. Why?
There is no proof for any Earthly religion, that there is their god.
It is not faith... not believing in something per se. Otherwise you could say we have faith about every single thing in existence and thatis far too solipsistic.
For somebody that believes in a religion, I like how they don't seem to realise, for the most part, that they are atheists too, to thousands of other religions, whilst regular atheists just haven't belief in one more.
Any criticism that can be placed on an atheist, can be placed squarely on the shoulders of a believer too, but they have much more that can be applied to them.

Anyway, overall...I don't see how atheists stubbornly don't believe, there is no proof to believe in any Earthly religion.
Unless I stubbornly believe that I am not a cat and that I stubbornly believe I am using a computer now?
Hmm...

Dave!

joe_chicken wrote:

Like I said before, and have repeated we needed religion for a reason, have we grown out of a need for moral guidance

The people who "created" religion, and wrote the various religious texts weren't writing them with the hand of god -- they were just putting into words existing social norms. It's not like people were raping each other left right and centre and then read the Bible and said "oh sh*t, we're NOT supposed to do that?" Religion was created as a means of explaining the inexplicable, the apparant morality it contains is merely a frame.

Also the fact that religion changes over time is evidence of the fact that it follows existing social conventions so as to not go out of step with society and thus become obsolete. If it were an infallible moral guide, then it would be stationary and we wouldn't be able to look at the Old Testament and point out how immoral it is.

But the fact is humans can pick and choose which religious texts we should obey because our moral framework has evolved with society. Surely if the source of our morality was god, then it would be static? But the fact is it changes over time.

joe_chicken wrote:

Is it as Scofflaw suggests and we've built up enough of a moral leadership from our state and police force

He makes an interesting point. I'm not sure if it's as simple as that, but it's certainly worth exploring.

I'd be inclined to say that laws, the state, the police, etc., are all other manifestations of moral conventions.

joe_chicken wrote:

If you don't think there's any stories of moral worth from the Bible, then you haven't read enough of it.

I don't recall saying that...

I'm sure you could find some moral worth in aspects of Mein Kampf, but that doesn't make it a good referance point when you're looking for moral guidance. The fact is there is alot of immoral material in both Mein Kampf and the Bible. I can say that because my moral compass has been shaped by years of societal evolution, so I know that stoning people for infidelity is wrong.

The fact that you can say that too indicates that you too acknowledge that religion is not always a good moral referance. Or do you too think that homosexuality is an abomination?

joe_chicken wrote:

It's interesting how quick people are to make religion into some kind of "beast" that "touches up children", steals their money, and kills poor innocent witches going around their daily business.

It's just as interesting how quick people are to make religion into some kind of infallible beacon of moral goodness, despite the fact that most religions contradict each other.

Again, which is the right book to turn to for moral guidance? The Koran?

pH

joe_chicken wrote:

If you don't think there's any stories of moral worth from the Bible, then you haven't read enough of it.

Well here's the problem, everyone (well most people) would agree that not *all* stories in the bible have moral worth.

Once you accept this, you accept that we as humans have an ability to detect 'moral worth'. The definition of moral worth is NOT equal to 'It says so in the bible', as there are clearly some stories and rules of very dubious moral worth.

Once you accept this you don't need the bible for moral worth, you've an inbuilt morality detector. Any random collection of stories, some would have a 'good' moral message, some not and we don't need the bible to tell which are which. In fact if you look at the *morality* of the bible (especially the new testament) none of it is original, it had all been thought about and proposed before.

Oh and what's your opinion of say The Book of Mormon? Does it have have stories of moral worth? How many times have you read it?

It's interesting how quick people are to make religion into some kind of "beast" that "touches up children", steals their money, and kills poor innocent witches going around their daily business.

Well, if the glove fits ...

It seems that if religions was 'real' or 'true' then all these things could just could never happen, yet they happens over and over again. I have a pet theory than no one in the upper echelons of power of any religion believes in the stuff. The best interpretation I could put on it is that they believe the stuff they propose is in some way 'good for the unwashed', the worst is that they find religion an easy way to get power and status and go to bed smiling at this incredible scam that they get away with daily.

Dave!

pH wrote:

The best interpretation I could put on it is that they believe the stuff they propose is in some way 'good for the unwashed', the worst is that they find religion an easy way to get power and status and go to bed smiling at this incredible scam that they get away with daily.

ooooh, controversial

Can't say I agree with you on that, but an interesting observation none the less!

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

Why is this a problem? Get all the teachings of tolerance, compassion, good will, forgiveness and charity, and put them into one place... It often doesn't work out like this, but these are the ideals behind religion

(Before people jump down my kneck with Crusades and Gay marriage... I'm not just talking about Catholicism.. or even Christianity...just religion)

I think you have answered your own question.

The ideas you listed are not the ideas behind religion. The idea behind religion is to unified adoption of moral values by a society based on a teaching that these moral values are in fact universal in nature and as such should be adopted by everyone. That some times produces good things but it also creates an environment that allows very bad things to thrive unchallenged.

All the morals you listed can exist without religion.

Your argument is kinda like saying that dictatorships can sometimes do good things, therefore we should not be too harsh to condemn dictatorships. The Mussolini clear out diseased swamps and got the trains running on time. But there is a bit of a leap from recognising that to saying that Italy need the Mussolini to clear out swamps and get the trains running on time.

Zillah

joe_chicken wrote:

First, you make a number of assumptions:
1) That I'm religious

Nope, I asked if you were religious and then made an argument as to why religion (specifically Catholicism) isn't very moral at all. If you were Catholic it would have just made it more interesting.

2) I'm stating that the influence of religion is a 100% good thing

You're arguing that religion is important for morality, I pointed out that religion often isn't very moral at all. No one went to any 100% absolutes here.

2) That religion was a huge influence on mankinds moral judgement (not everything to do with morality) and in the space of 100 years it has almost disappeared.

Yup, its influenced a lot of people's morality. But that doesn't mean that it is needed for morality nor that its influence has been good. Morality can exist completely free of religion.

Like my point above, has our greater understanding of the universe given us a better understanding of morality?/

Yes, its told us loads about where morality comes from. It has a very distinct evolutionary origin.

Second, can you not see the massive contradiction in your 2 points?
a) Religion has had as much influence as tomatoes in our culture
b) Religion has loads of money, killed millions of people and "touches children"

There is no contradiction here, you've just misunderstood. I'm not saying religion hasn't influenced morality, just that its influence is not needed for one to be moral.

Zillah wrote:

So no, we can be moral without the despicable influence of religion thank you. Religion might try and lay claim to morality, but ultimately its just high jacking a very natural (evolved) human trait.

Again, more assumptions, not based in fact.

I make no assumptions. You should really read some Dawkins. Suffice to say, morality has a clear evolutionary basis. I'll summarise the main points:

1 - By being moral/selfless towards one's family one helps one's genes survive and hence the moral traits will survive.
2 - By being moral/selfless towards one's "friends" one can expect such behaviour to be reciprocated and hence you and your family are more likely to survive.
3 - A general policy of "be moral" works because during our long past because the vast majority of people, if not all people, would have fit into the above two categories.

Now, I'd really appreciate it if you try to understand the above before responding.

joe_chicken wrote:

Zillah wrote:

Oxymoron. Because of the nature of Atheism any given atheist cannot be attacked because of the beliefs or actions of any other. In no way do I subscribe or conform to the beliefs of other Atheists

Not sure what you're getting at there?--
Yes you do. You believe there's no such thing as God, and that people who believe in God are wrong. You share this absolute belief with every other atheist. This is what an atheist is.

No, I do not subscribe or conform. I happen to agree. Hence, if any other Atheist does any weird or stupid I'm not accountable, I just don't agree with him anymore.

Thats the fundamental difference between Atheists and the religious. This will make more sense when I explain why it isn't faith below.

The fact that you don't know that God doesn't exist, makes it a belief

Do you believe in Thor? Zeus? Leprechauns? Invisible pink unicorns?

You reject all these things, I just go one step further. I have no belief in the non-existence of God, I simply have no belief, in the same way you have no belief in the Hindu pantheon or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The naturalistic approach is to begin with nothing. You believe in nothing. Then, we take what we can prove or support and then we do believe in it. The most religious person in the world applies this logic all the time, they just have one blind spot that leads to them believing in their own particular God. An Atheist applies it to everything.

Again, more assumptions

Nope, see above about evolution and morality.

The fact that evolution "simply is" is exactly why it can be dangerous.

Why?

I'm not too sure what you're getting at by the "born of ignorance" statement.

Uh, how to put this.

Understanding of evolution does not equal belief in eugenics.

Anymore than understanding of physics equals belief in the use of nuclear weapons.

Understand?

If you deny the link between the writing of The Origin of Species and the rise of atheism, then you are blind

Historically they may be linked, but philosophically, no. I can believe in evolution and be Atheist or Religious, one does not require the other.

Tell that to Michael Faraday (amongst many others)

I would if I could. I'd have a very interesting discussion with him. I'd wonder how he can perform competant sceptical science while retaining his irrational belief in a deity.

joe_chicken

Ok...


Seeing as alot of you seem to misreading me and I don't have much time, I'll make 2 points and leave it at that.

1) I'll concede that atheism isn't a religion. It's just taken 2 things that make religion as dangerous as it is; arrogance and closed mindedness and not taken any of the things that are of possible benefit; tolerance, compassion, good will, forgiveness and charity
(I'm not saying all atheists are devoid of these traits, just simply stating that they've replaced one belief system, that has these, and replaced it with another which does not)

2) (genuine question)Why did we need religion? Why don't we need it now?

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote:

1) I'll concede that atheism isn't a religion. It's just taken 2 things that make religion as dangerous as it is; arrogance and closed mindedness and not taken any of the things that are of possible benefit; tolerance, compassion, good will, forgiveness and charity
(I'm not saying all atheists are devoid of these traits, just simply stating that they've replaced one belief system, that has these, and replaced it with another which does not)

Atheism is neither a belief system nor a religion. You don't replace your religious moral framework with an atheist moral frame work because there isn't one. You replace your religious moral framework with anything you like In fact a lot of religious people who become atheists keep exactly the same moral framework, exactly the same ideas of right and wrong, they just simply don't accept any more that these come from some "sky god", but rather from humanity itself.

joe_chicken wrote:

2) (genuine question)Why did we need religion? Why don't we need it now?

We needed religion to provide easy answers to difficult questions, and as a system of controlling population groups under a particular doctrine.

As modern ideas, science and communication have developed this become less and less important. Religion will still provide easy comforting ideas to some, and all the best to them. But this should be a private thing. It is clear that we do not need large scale religious organisation to regulate or expand moral systems over large populations. Our secular systems of law and government can do that without involving religion. In fact it is far far better if they don't involve religion

Dades

The only thing one atheist officially has in common with another atheist - is that neither of them believe the gods of religion exist. After that they choose their own paths, which may involve being moral, compassionate and kind, or indeed a nihilistic social degenerate.


Consider religion like a pair of shoddy stabilisers on the bicycle of a young society. One might believe they may have been necessary in the beginning, but that time has passed and now removing them can bring about a freedom which they could never offer.

joe_chicken

The Atheist wrote:

Consider religion like a pair of shoddy stabilisers on the bicycle of a young society. One might believe they may have been necessary in the beginning, but that time has passed and now removing them can bring about a freedom which they could never offer.

What if religion is the spokes?...

I'm not saying it is. Just that it might.

Dades

joe_chicken wrote:

What if religion is the spokes?...
I'm not saying it is. Just that it might.

If anything, legislation is the spokes (IMO).
Common law was originally based on Canon law, but superseded it a long time ago.

Religion doesn't stop crime - proper enforcement of law does however.

joe_chicken

The Atheist wrote:

If anything, legislation is the spokes (IMO).
Common law was originally based on Canon law, but superseded it a long time ago.

So why didn't religion go away then? Why did we need it for so much longer after that?

Tar.Aldarion

Because some people just genuinely believe since they were told as a child, some start to believe in life for one reason or another, some people are scared, some people need something to believe in, some people need something to turn to in life when they hit upon hard times. Something that can protect them, make them feel safe and that thier life will be worthwhile.

joe_chicken

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Because some people just genuinely believe since they were told as a child, some start to believe in life for one reason or another, some people are scared, some people need something to believe in, some people need something to turn to in life when they hit upon hard times. Something that can protect them, make them feel safe and that thier life will be worthwhile.

Why did so many people need those things 150 years ago and why do very few of us need them these days?

Is it that we know more?

Is it that our lives are just better?

Is it that we're better people?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yes
no
no

joe_chicken

Mordeth wrote:

yes
no
no

Ok... Now I'm getting somewhere.
What do we know more of?

And do these things supply us with the same things that Tar has mentioned above?

Tar.Aldarion

joe_chicken wrote:

Why did so many people need those things 150 years ago and why do very few of us need them these days?

Is it that we know more?

Is it that our lives are just better?

Is it that we're better people?

Do you really believe that very few of us need them now?
We are not better people, we may know a little bit more, our lifes being better is a matter of perspective.
A lot of people these days still need them, people can be just as frightened, despairing and lonely in the world as they were back then.

We do know more than those from long ago, which is why people would not believe the sun is a go these days etc.
Whether you need something to believe in is down to your personality, experiences and who you are.

joe_chicken

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Do you really believe that very few of us need them now?
We are not better people, we may know a little bit more, our lifes being better is a matter of perspective.
A lot of people these days still need them, people can be just as frightened, despairing and lonely in the world as they were back then.

I'm sorry if they read like statements, they were questions...

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

We do know more than those from long ago, which is why people would not believe the sun is a go these days etc.
Whether you need something to believe in is down to your personality, experiences and who you are.

What parts of our personality, experience and who we are have changed?

Dades

joe_chicken wrote:

Ok... Now I'm getting somewhere.
What do we know more of?

We know enough new science from the last few centuries that we should be sceptical about the various religious explanations as to our origins, even if we still can't answer that final question.

joe_chicken wrote:

And do these things supply us with the same things that Tar has mentioned above?

Whether or not these things are supplied by something other than religion is irrelevant to the truth. You might as well live in the Matrix as maintain a system you suspect to be bogus in order to keep people "comfortable".

Dades

joe_chicken wrote:

What parts of our personality, experience and who we are have changed?

None of those have changed - we simply have more information these days.