Atheism and the Third World

LaVidaLoca

Been listening to/reading and agreeing with Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al for some time now, and recently arrived back from a trip to the so-called "Third World", that did make me think somewhat.

Even though, as I beleive, God does not exist and religions are simply consoling (and rather childish) fictions.

Does seeing the poverty and difficulty with which many (if not most) people on the planet live, ever give you pause in your criticism of religion?

Do you ever feel, that, though correct, Atheism is a 'luxury' belief - most people on the planet have lives that are so hard that a consoling fiction is necessary to get them through it?

Of course, as Dawkins would say "Just because it's consoling, does not make it true.", and I would agree.

But could you really bring yourself to tell a Vietnamese peasant woman that the ancestor worship that gets her through her 12 hours a day ,every day , up to her waist in a rice paddy, is a bunch of baloney?

Any thoughts?

CerebralCortex

Very valid point, and difficult to answer, but I sometimes wonder what effect obedience to a doctrine has on the ability of a community to reason there way out of a difficult situation. As you said I have the luxury being in a 1st world country so I don't know enough to give a better reply. I certainly know I couldn't live in a very catholic Philippines for example and maybe other rich and similarly secular people would choose no to invest time in that country.

Dades

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Do you ever feel, that, though correct, Atheism is a 'luxury' belief - most people on the planet have lives that are so hard that a consoling fiction is necessary to get them through it?

I think that to be true. Look at all the Christians that are what they are following something traumatic in their lives.

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

But could you really bring yourself to tell a Vietnamese peasant woman that the ancestor worship that gets her through her 12 hours a day ,every day , up to her waist in a rice paddy, is a bunch of baloney?

I'm not given to telling anyone what I think unless they specifically requested my take on it. I recognise the value religion gives some people.

Interesting your choice of country, given Vietnam is supposedly the second most atheistic nation in the world!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

wouldn't removing this fairy tale comfort give them all the more reason to fight for their rights and to work together to improve their lot?

pH

Religion has had 2,000+ years to deal with poverty and it's done pretty much nothing. The very rich have lived alongside the desperately poor for millennia with the religious just looking on. Some societies have had hugely powerful religions running them (theocracies) and even these have never produced a social utopia which the theists would have you believe that worshipping their Gods and obeying his rules should achieve.

So I'd rather concentrate on things like economics and education to try and lift people out of poverty rather than giving them some consoling nonsense to help them deal with their lot as we drive around in SUVs and take 2 sun holidays a year, "But at least they believe in God so it's not *all* bad for them".

18AD

Mordeth wrote: »

wouldn't removing this fairy tale comfort give them all the more reason to fight for their rights and to work together to improve their lot?

Would there belief actually hinder them from doing so? Wouldn't informing them of how to improve their living conditions and making them aware of their rights be more effective?

I'm sure if after you explained this and then they ignored this advice due to the circumstances being God's will, or whatever you wish to call it, that some religious interjection may be appropriate.

Also, I'm sure you've noticed how difficult it is to get people to drop their religion.

And say for instance these people base their moral judgements on their religion of choice, I suggest that it might even be dangerous to remove their ethical framework. Then you're burdened with explaining to them the ins and outs of ethics, which is a momentous task in itself.

This ties in with what was said above about atheism being a sort of 'luxury' because it is clearly not a primary concern for some people.

In instances of people fighting for their rights have they been held back or motivated by their religious beliefs? I'm sure it fits into their belief system, but that interpretation may only be secondary to the action undertaken.
I'm not too familiar with the interplay between activism and religion but I'm certainly not talking about conflict that arises based on belief systems.
I'm considering rights to be different to belief systems, although there will be slight overlap.

Edit: As an aside, religion being made readily available in some areas may be a method of control by the ones in power. In a way, to comfort or subdue their people. 'We know it's ****ty, but God is with you'.

All the best.
AD.

CodeMonkey

But could you really bring yourself to tell a Vietnamese peasant woman that the ancestor worship that gets her through her 12 hours a day ,every day , up to her waist in a rice paddy, is a bunch of baloney?

I think you might be misrepresenting the vietnamese peasant woman here or anyone who practices this superstition. It's not the same as worshipping a god. They don't worship their ancestors to get them through the day. I don't think asians draw strength from ancestors like a christian from a single all powerful god. They just get on with the hard work and hope their ancestors/dieties/guardian angels grant them favours to make life a little easier.

Here's a little extract from wikipedia which should explain it:

The goal of ancestor veneration is to ensure the ancestors' continued well-being and positive disposition towards the living and sometimes to ask for special favours or assistance. The social or non-religious function of ancestor veneration is to cultivate kinship values like filial piety, family loyalty, and continuity of the family lineage.

Asian people see ancestors more like guardian angels if you really want a western comparison. Sorry, had to point this out.

stereoroid

I think I've enjoyed the luxury of time and "headspace" to think about these matters, though in my case it didn't lead to any drastic changes, more of a recognition of what I actually believed in or not.

There is a documented correlation between poverty and religiosity, between countries (Norway vs Brazil), or even within countries (North vs South in the USA). I think this is related to IQ too, statistically. Of course it's possible to point at exceptions in both cases - Kuwait is religious and rich, there are some very smart theists - but it would take more than that to refute the statistics.

PDN

stereoroid wrote: »

I think I've enjoyed the luxury of time and "headspace" to think about these matters, though in my case it didn't lead to any drastic changes, more of a recognition of what I actually believed in or not.

There is a documented correlation between poverty and religiosity, between countries (Norway vs Brazil), or even within countries (North vs South in the USA). I think this is related to IQ too, statistically. Of course it's possible to point at exceptions in both cases - Kuwait is religious and rich, there are some very smart theists - but it would take more than that to refute the statistics.

There is a sociological phenomenon called "redemption lift" which means that adherents to certain forms of religion (primarily Protestant Christianity) experience on average increased financial prosperity. I can see how certain fatalistic forms of religion (particularly those that tell the poor that their poverty is divine retribution for sins committed in a past life) would have a detrimental effect.

The correlation between prosperous nations and the prevalence of atheism would, in my opinion, support the thesis that material prosperity increases the incidence of atheism, rather than vice versa.

Religious motivation has, of course, often been a positive force for helping the oppressed gain equal rights. Martin Luther King, Archbishop Tutu & the Methodist pioneers of the British trade union movement spring to mind. Other religious figures have been instruments of oppression and tyranny.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Religious motivation has, of course, often been a positive force for helping the oppressed gain equal rights. Martin Luther King, Archbishop Tutu & the Methodist pioneers of the British trade union movement spring to mind. Other religious figures have been instruments of oppression and tyranny.

Archibishop Tutu and King were fighing racial inequality, the original proponents of which were using scripture to justify to their racial views and policies.
D.F. Malan, Prime Minister of South Africa when the National Party came to power was a champion of white supremacy and pioneer of apartheid policy, which his party came to power on. He was also an ordained minister of The Dutch Reformed Church.

My opinion would be Religion, faith, Christianity without a sizable amount secular skepticism monitoring it, questioning it has always end up doing bad.

The rise of equal rights for women, blacks and gays has only been with the increasing rise of secularism and skepticism.

An Fear Aniar

Well, on the other hand, material things can bring a lot of unhappiness and make it impossible for people to achieve anything in the world of the spirit...

There is a time when the soul lives in God, and a time when God lives in the soul. What is appropriate to one state is inconsistent with the other. When God lives in the soul it ought to abandon itself entirely to His providence. When the soul lives in God it is obliged to procure for itself carefully and very regularly, every means it can devise by which to arrive at the divine union. The whole procedure is marked out; the readings, the examinations, the resolutions. The guide is always at hand and everything is by rule, even the hours for conversation. When God lives in the soul it has nothing left of self, but only that which the spirit which actuates it imparts to it at each moment. Nothing is provided for the future, no road is marked out, but it is like a child which can be led wherever one pleases, and has only feeling to distinguish what is presented to it. No more books with marked passages for such a soul; often enough it is even deprived of a regular director, for God allows it no other support than that which He gives it Himself. Its dwelling is in darkness, forgetfulness, abandonment, death and nothingness. It feels keenly its wants and miseries without knowing from whence or when will come its relief. With eyes fixed on Heaven it waits peacefully and without anxiety for someone to come to its assistance. God, who finds no purer disposition in His spouse than this entire self-renunciation for the sake of living the life of grace according to the divine operation, provides her with necessary books, thoughts, insight into her own soul, advice and counsel, and the examples of the wise. Everything that others discover with great difficulty this soul finds in abandonment, and what they guard with care in order to be able to find it again, this soul receives at the moment there is occasion for it, and afterwards relinquishes so as to admit nothing but exactly what God desires it to have in order to live by Him alone. The former soul undertakes an infinity of good works for the glory of God, the latter is often cast aside in a corner of the world like a bit of broken crockery, apparently of no use to anyone. There, this soul, forsaken by creatures but in the enjoyment of God by a very real, true, and active love (active although infused in repose), does not attempt anything by its own impulse; it only knows that it has to abandon itself and to remain in the hands of God to be used by Him as He pleases. Often it is ignorant of its use, but God knows well. The world thinks it is useless, and appearances give colour to this judgment, but nevertheless it is very certain that in mysterious ways and by unknown channels, it spreads abroad an infinite amount of grace on persons who often have no idea of it, and of whom it never thinks. In souls abandoned to God everything is efficacious, everything is a sermon and apostolic. God imparts to their silence, to their repose, to their detachment, to their words, gestures, etc., a certain virtue which, unknown to them, works in the hearts of those around them; and, as they are guided by the occasional actions of others who are made use of by grace to instruct them without their knowledge, in the same way, they, in their turn, are made use of for the support and guidance of others without any direct acquaintance with them, or understanding to that effect.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/decaussade/abandonment.ii_1.ii.i.i.html



.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

what the **** kind of nonsense is that?

pH

Mordeth wrote: »

what the **** kind of nonsense is that?

An Fear Aniar wrote:

I just do a bit of trolling now and again... like if I see an animal lying by the side of the raod I have to poke it with a stick, just to see what it might do.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55621681&postcount=65

He's trolling, he's boasted about it previously. Apparently it's fine to troll this forum and boast about it.

Cactus Col

Well, it's been obvious that religion has been on the decline in the west for a while now. Which is something that bugs me about atheism as a movement. Everyone gets to be all smug and happy about the rise of Atheism and the decline of the church (or churches) in the west.

But in the poor parts of the world where organised religion is on the rise, where Islam is spreading ... surely this is where people should be concentrating on. Instead of writing books on the evils of mother thresa, maybe atheists should seek a more active role in bring education to these countries, helping to prevent religion from getting too much of a foot hold.

Essentially if you don't like it, why don't you do something about it.

An Fear Aniar

Mordeth wrote: »

what the **** kind of nonsense is that?

I tawt you wuz a moderator?


.

jawlie

Cactus Col wrote: »

Well, it's been obvious that religion has been on the decline in the west for a while now. Which is something that bugs me about atheism as a movement. Everyone gets to be all smug and happy about the rise of Atheism and the decline of the church (or churches) in the west.

But in the poor parts of the world where organised religion is on the rise, where Islam is spreading ... surely this is where people should be concentrating on. Instead of writing books on the evils of mother thresa, maybe atheists should seek a more active role in bring education to these countries, helping to prevent religion from getting too much of a foot hold.

Atheism differes from religious movements in that it is "practiced" on an individual basis and not organised. It was the organising of religions, such as the RC Church or the Church of England, which gave them the ability to be financially supported by their followers.

Dades

pH wrote: »

He's trolling, he's boasted about it previously. Apparently it's fine to troll this forum and boast about it.

Troll or not - you decide... either way you don't need to feed him.

Both here and Christianity are subject to mild trolling. Otherwise the twain would ne'er meet, and it would be awful boring around here.

jawlie wrote: »

Atheism differes from religious movements in that it is "practiced" on an individual basis and not organised. It was the organising of religions, such as the RC Church or the Church of England, which gave them the ability to be financially supported by their followers.

Excellent point.

Cactus Col

jawlie wrote: »

Atheism differes from religious movements in that it is "practiced" on an individual basis and not organised. It was the organising of religions, such as the RC Church or the Church of England, which gave them the ability to be financially supported by their followers.

So what?

That's just an excuse to do nothing.

There are plenty of charities not set up or supported by the established religions who contribute to the well being of people in need.

And seeing as so many Atheists seem to beleive that education is fundamental in helping break people free from the yoke of religion, then surely it can't beyond the scope of reality to get some kind of charitable organisation up and running?

Dades

Cactus Col wrote: »

That's just an excuse to do nothing.

There are plenty of charities not set up or supported by the established religions who contribute to the well being of people in need.

As mentioned, atheism isn't a movement - it's an individual belief. Therefore any "charity" or "good works" are done on an individual basis, or as part of a preferred cause.

So I'd like to know on what basis you have reached the conclusion that "nothing" is being done by people here?

An Fear Aniar

Dades wrote: »

As mentioned, atheism isn't a movement - it's an individual belief.

Some people want to make it a movement, like the Brights, innit?


.

Cactus Col

Dades wrote: »

As mentioned, atheism isn't a movement - it's an individual belief.

Why isn't there a movement?

Isn't it a logical step to organise to help bring change, such as the seperation of church and govt?

CerebralCortex

Cactus Col wrote: »

Why isn't there a movement?

Isn't it a logical step to organise to help bring change, such as the seperation of church and govt?

Yes but that can be done by atheist and non atheist alike.

Dave!

Indeed, that would be secularism. See: USA founding fathers.

stereoroid

DaveMcG wrote: »

Indeed, that would be secularism. See: USA founding fathers.

Certainly, but if poverty and religiosity go together, who has the most motivation to really do something about poverty?

I am well aware that Christian charities such as World Vision do good work in Africa and elsewhere, and I would not wish to disparage what they do. I don't know if they consider that their work may lead to a reduction in the number of Christians in the areas they work in, assuming they don't evangelize. They claim to provide charity regardless of religious affiliations, but you do need to be a Christian"witness" to work for them.

Húrin

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Of course, as Dawkins would say "Just because it's consoling, does not make it true.", and I would agree.

The claim that religion exists because people want comfort and consolement makes no more sense than the claim that atheism exists because people want autonomy.

pH wrote: »

Religion has had 2,000+ years to deal with poverty and it's done pretty much nothing.

Christians eliminated slavery.

What of Marxism and positivism? Alienation, environmental catastrophe, and mechanised world wars.

Sangre

Húrin wrote: »

Christians eliminated slavery.

and with no time wasted as well!

people should be educated because its a basic human right. the fact they may also reject religion is quite low down on the list of priorities.

pdn wrote:

The correlation between prosperous nations and the prevalence of atheism would, in my opinion, support the thesis that material prosperity increases the incidence of atheism, rather than vice versa.

i would imagine so, wealth gives us the luxury of time and education. both of which are needed to question what we've been taught since birth.

lostexpectation

Isn't it a logical step to organise to help bring change, such as the seperation of church and govt?

that has and is been done

lostexpectation

Húrin wrote: »

The claim that religion exists because people want comfort and consolement makes no more sense than the claim that atheism exists because people want autonomy.


Christians eliminated slavery.

was it only christians who did that?
well it still around, but the type they help to abolish was ridiculous at the time, im sure the salves had something to say about it, and it also became economically impractical.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

The claim that religion exists because people want comfort and consolement makes no more sense than the claim that atheism exists because people want autonomy.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with that at all.

Atheism doesn't exist to fill a need - it's simply an absence of belief in faiths that were conceived to fill a need. Note also the difference between an actual atheist, and someone who simply rejects religion so as not to be morally reprehensible.

LaVidaLoca

"Christians eliminated slavery"

Well the people who elminated slavery were probably Christians, but so was 99% of the population at the time. Secondly, the people that started and maintained slavery for hundreds of years were also Christians. So there's no argument there.


Except to note that generally speaking in history whenever there has been any movement towards social progress, advancement towards human rights, liberty for women and so on, the established churches have been against it. They only tend to change their minds when when they realise that to not do so would result in overwhelming change in their popular support.

"

The claim that religion exists because people want comfort and consolement makes no more sense than the claim that atheism exists because people want autonomy

No. Atheism exists because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God. Religion exists because many human beings deperately want to beleive in God, whether there is evidence for his existence or not.

robindch

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

"Christians eliminated slavery"

Well the people who elminated slavery were probably Christians, but so was 99% of the population at the time. Secondly, the people that started and maintained slavery for hundreds of years were also Christians. So there's no argument there.

Already done this month:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=55566175#post55566175

Not that our religious confrères accept reality, of course. Faith-based history, one assumes.

ballymary

i am currently volunteering in a poor country that is deeply religious (catholic). i feel that the depth of religion actually holds people in poverty in that they put trust in god to make things better instead of doing it themselves-its an opt out clause. also-so much school time is taken up teaching kids religion, when they cannot read and write or add 2+2...religion denounces capitalism and a lack of capitalist spirit promotes poverty??

ballymary

i am currently working in a poor catholic country and i think religion holds people back. people put their faith in god rather than trying to change their situation. also, illiterate children are taught endless religious nonsense in school when they should be taught to read, write, add and subtract...its a serious problem...also, i think it holds people in a backward way of thinking-eg anti-homosexual, womens rights....i have first hand experience of this over the last few yrs...religion hinders the poor....however i will say that the only positive impact religion can have is in moral teaching-eg marriage gives financial security to women and children in particular and allows children to have a male role model in their lives...and also with the message of being a decent person in your dealings with others...

its true that religion has declined in europe but not in the states-there are religious nuts of all types there and becoming more fundamentalist....even people in their 20s in ireland, who dont attend mass or have any interest in religion still say they will baptise their kids because they "dont want them to feel left out on communion or confirmation day" the level of brainwashing of religion all over the world is mindblowing and i wouldnt ever hold my breath for things to change...

Dades

ballymary wrote: »

people in their 20s in ireland, who dont attend mass or have any interest in religion still say they will baptise their kids because they "dont want them to feel left out on communion or confirmation day"

...or want to get them into a school within 20 miles!

Húrin

I think it's naive to consider religion to be an opiate. Materialism is an opiate too: "if there is no God, then everything is permitted". The atheist feels free to do what he wants without worrying about divine authority or judgement. This may well be true, but it is a comforting thought that can be as much of an opiate as religion can.

18AD wrote: »

Would there belief actually hinder them from doing so? Wouldn't informing them of how to improve their living conditions and making them aware of their rights be more effective?

Some religions, or more accurately, some religious cultures use theology to justify inequality. More often than not it is unfaithful and false to the original scripture, in the case of Christianity and Hinduism.

estebancambias

Watching a show about Burma tonight.

''All we can do is pray, whether or prayers are answered or not, it is the only thing we have''

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

they would do better with rifles instead of prayers.

well, rifles and capable generals.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Some religions, or more accurately, some religious cultures use theology to justify inequality. More often than not it is unfaithful and false to the original scripture, in the case of Christianity and Hinduism.

That doesn't really change the fact that its still being used to justify inequality. Oh sure, they're not supposed to (apparently), but it happens.


I've said it before that I don't think removing the faith of a life long believer is a good thing, its far too important to them and even if it were possible (which its not in most cases), it could be detrimental. I worry about the children. While religious belief might be soothing in a day-to-day sense, ultimately I think its an incredibly powerful influence in terms of uncomplaining acceptance. As an atheist, when something bad happens me or I find myself in bad circumstances, my immediate reaction is "Balls to this! Time to make things better". I find many religious people tend to resort to a "God has a plan" or "What will be will be" sort of attitude.

To borrow a metaphor, faith is giving them a fish, secularism teaches them to fish for themselves. Its hard to demand better from life if you believe your role has been assigned by an all knowing all powerful deity.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Materialism is an opiate too: "if there is no God, then everything is permitted".

It's a bleak world in which the only thing that stops a theist from killing somebody is their belief that an invisible deity's going to get upset...

the_syco

Zillah wrote: »

I've said it before that I don't think removing the faith of a life long believer is a good thing, its far too important to them and even if it were possible (which its not in most cases), it could be detrimental. I worry about the children. While religious belief might be soothing in a day-to-day sense, ultimately I think its an incredibly powerful influence in terms of uncomplaining acceptance. As an atheist, when something bad happens me or I find myself in bad circumstances, my immediate reaction is "Balls to this! Time to make things better". I find many religious people tend to resort to a "God has a plan" or "What will be will be" sort of attitude.

Agreed. If you live in hell, working for good, in the hope of getting to a better place when you die is better than sitting on your hole, knowing that when you die, only the worms will be having a field day.

I'm hoping heaven will be fun, but at the same time, I acknowledge that most religons are based on filling the gaps of unknown, so the probability of their being a heaven is small. In saying that, I'd say the chance of a micro-orgasim evolving to produce a nuclear weapon that can wipe out a few million people is also fairly small, so meh.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

I think it's naive to consider religion to be an opiate.

I'm sorry but imo it patently is. A huge proportion of people believe in religion for the comfort it gives them - not because it has any evidence of being real.

Húrin wrote: »

Materialism is an opiate too: "if there is no God, then everything is permitted".

Permitted by who, exactly? The last I checked we were all subject to some curious concept called "legislation" which, inconveniently, precludes one from eating babies and raping nuns.

Malari

Dades wrote: »

Permitted by who, exactly? The last I checked we were all subject to some curious concept called "legislation" which, inconveniently, precludes one from eating babies and raping nuns.

Most religions have somehow associated their belief in a deity to some sort of ethical code. Therefore an attack on the deity (ie, athiesm) is associated with a lack of morals. A lot of religiously derived ethical codes have historically been guided by the secular morals of the day, and only change when pressured by society.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

That doesn't really change the fact that its still being used to justify inequality. Oh sure, they're not supposed to (apparently), but it happens.

Any ideology can justify equality. Even in atheistic communist countries inequality is justified.

I've said it before that I don't think removing the faith of a life long believer is a good thing, its far too important to them and even if it were possible (which its not in most cases), it could be detrimental. I worry about the children. While religious belief might be soothing in a day-to-day sense, ultimately I think its an incredibly powerful influence in terms of uncomplaining acceptance. As an atheist, when something bad happens me or I find myself in bad circumstances, my immediate reaction is "Balls to this! Time to make things better". I find many religious people tend to resort to a "God has a plan" or "What will be will be" sort of attitude.

Well, that kind of religious thinking depends on the belief that everything that happens is God's will - this is not an idea that is shared by all or even most religious people.

While it may appear to be nothing but good to improve (what a vague term) one's position, there are effects on the world, depending on what you do. For instance, the western world's 200-year project to improve our living standards is causing inadvertent ecological collapse.

To borrow a metaphor, faith is giving them a fish, secularism teaches them to fish for themselves. Its hard to demand better from life if you believe your role has been assigned by an all knowing all powerful deity.

I really don't think it's that simple. How about when like one above poster, it leads to violence? "they would do better with rifles instead of prayers."

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

It's a bleak world in which the only thing that stops a theist from killing somebody is their belief that an invisible deity's going to get upset...

That's not what I meant. My conscience is as developed as yours and my morality is as internalised as yours.

Dades wrote: »

I'm sorry but imo it patently is. A huge proportion of people believe in religion for the comfort it gives them - not because it has any evidence of being real.

Neither does atheism but that doesn't stop anyone! The evidence for religious belief is not visible to you but that doesn't mean it is non-existent.
However, I think that the fact that life and absolute laws of physics, logic and morality exist, to be indicative of a creator God. I consider the phenomenon of speaking in tongues to be evidence that it is the Christian God.

Permitted by who, exactly? The last I checked we were all subject to some curious concept called "legislation" which, inconveniently, precludes one from eating babies and raping nuns.

Malari wrote: »

Most religions have somehow associated their belief in a deity to some sort of ethical code. Therefore an attack on the deity (ie, athiesm) is associated with a lack of morals. A lot of religiously derived ethical codes have historically been guided by the secular morals of the day, and only change when pressured by society.

I did not claim that atheists lack morals - that is a blatantly stupid claim. While we can mostly agree on moral standards, what is the justification for those standards? Can we really claim that our feelings, consciences are solid enough to say that these standards are not universal? Does universal morality not demand a universal authority like God?

Malari

Húrin wrote: »

I did not claim that atheists lack morals - that is a blatantly stupid claim.

Maybe you didn't claim it using those words, but it is often assumed that if there is no god then there is no particular reason to be "good".

Húrin wrote: »

While we can mostly agree on moral standards, what is the justification for those standards? Can we really claim that our feelings, consciences are solid enough to say that these standards are not universal? Does universal morality not demand a universal authority like God?

But morals are something that people find hard to explain. Thought experiments and studies are interesting, in that subjects will almost universally advocate one choice in a moral dilemma without really knowing why they do that.

There's no reason for justifying that choice by saying that it's god's authority, rather than trying to explain "universal morality" in another way.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

...I consider the phenomenon of speaking in tongues to be evidence that it is the Christian God......

Care to explain that one?

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

My conscience is as developed as yours and my morality is as internalised as yours.

I quite agree, but why do you imply that as an atheist who doesn't believe that I'm going to get clobbered by god, that I feel free to do anything at all? That's quite an assumption on your part, and we haven't even met!

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

That's not what I meant. My conscience is as developed as yours and my morality is as internalised as yours.

So you can see why an atheist wouldn't feel he is free to do what ever he wants just because he doesn't believe God exists?

Evolution has provided most people (not all, but most) with a basic internal moral system, based on emotional responses. The idea that materialism gives people the freedom to do what they like is clearly not true.

Húrin wrote: »

The evidence for religious belief is not visible to you but that doesn't mean it is non-existent.

It does mean though that it is entirely untestable and unverifiable.

Basically one cannot determine if it is real or simply all in your head (such as your assertion that life and the laws of physics ... suggest a creator God).

As such it is largely useless. You could just be wrong.

Húrin wrote: »

Does universal morality not demand a universal authority like God?

No, but then I imagine few here believe in universal morality (ie moral standards that exist independently of humans or human evolution)

An Fear Aniar

Wicknight wrote: »

No, but then I imagine few here believe in universal morality (ie moral standards that exist independently of humans or human evolution)

It seems a little unfeeling to talk of about moral standards.

Standards are cold abstract things. It might be more helpful to think about agapay.



.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Neither does atheism but that doesn't stop anyone! The evidence for religious belief is not visible to you but that doesn't mean it is non-existent.
However, I think that the fact that life and absolute laws of physics, logic and morality exist, to be indicative of a creator God. I consider the phenomenon of speaking in tongues to be evidence that it is the Christian God.

I'm happy for you to do so - but I still think you're in denying the obvious if you object to the idea that a lot of belief is based on the what it has to offer, rather than evidence.

karen3212

Personally, I think it absolutely cruel to strip people of their religion, faith, spirituality, before you can help them.

People can be persuaded to reinterpret their religion - if need be - to put into action methods that will help them, if there is evidence that these methods will actually help them.

Anyway, I thought this debate on TED was quite good, and backed by some research.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/270