Atheism and genocide

live2thewire

Where God is denied, or opposed, soon Man and his dignity will also be denied and disregarded.

These are the words of the Bishop of Ausburg.

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20090413-18607.html

Rev Hellfire

People say a lot of things.

chughes

He would say that, wouldn't he ? Where does that leave Father Brendan Smith, Father Sean Fortune, Father Ivan Payne, etc, etc, etc..... All good god fearing men..I don't think.

Galvasean

I shall see your Nazism and Communism... and raise you a few Crusades.

live2thewire

stop aiming this **** at the op, he thinks this guy is talking ****.

Galvasean

live2thewire wrote: »

stop aiming this **** at the op, he thinks this guy is talking ****.

Referring to yourself in the third person?
Glad you (he?) think(s?) that way.

Dades

live2thewire wrote: »

stop aiming this **** at the op, he thinks this guy is talking ****.

Do us a favour and turn down your Opressometer. Nobody thinks you're the Bishop of Whereveritis.

liah

Galvasean wrote: »

I shall see your Nazism and Communism... and raise you a few Crusades.

Alright feck off right now with the Nazi/Communist allegations.

1) Hitler was not an atheist, despite what religious propaganda would have you believe.

2) Communism had feck all to do with religion or atheism, it was political and not religious, so it hardly qualifies, not even remotely on the same level as the Crusades.

marco_polo

live2thewire wrote: »

stop aiming this **** at the op, he thinks this guy is talking ****.

Forget to log into the second account?

liah wrote: »

Alright feck off right now with the Nazi/Communist allegations.

1) Hitler was not an atheist, despite what religious propaganda would have you believe.

2) Communism had feck all to do with religion or atheism, it was political and not religious, so it hardly qualifies, not even remotely on the same level as the Crusades.

Methinks you missed his point.

Zillah

liah wrote: »

Alright feck off right now with the Nazi/Communist allegations.

1) Hitler was not an atheist, despite what religious propaganda would have you believe.

2) Communism had feck all to do with religion or atheism, it was political and not religious, so it hardly qualifies, not even remotely on the same level as the Crusades.

Actually I'd argue that Nazism and Communism were very religious. Cult of Personality, conformity, top-down dictated morality, heightened sense of one's own importance in the world, subjective values masquerading as objectivity...

Anyway, in response to the Bishop's comment I would say; Humanism, you ignorant jerk.

marco_polo wrote: »

Forget to log into the second account?

Yeah I noticed that too. *slow clap*

liah

marco_polo wrote: »

Methinks you missed his point.

No, it's just that some religious twat's bound to read it and think that Hitler's an atheist and Communism has to do with trying to force atheist views down people's throats.

Galvasean

liah wrote: »

Alright feck off right now with the Nazi/Communist allegations.

1) Hitler was not an atheist, despite what religious propaganda would have you believe.

2) Communism had feck all to do with religion or atheism, it was political and not religious, so it hardly qualifies, not even remotely on the same level as the Crusades.

I'm going to quote Bugs Bunny in saying, "He don't know me very well, do he?" :pac:

marco_polo

liah wrote: »

No, it's just that some religious twat's bound to read it and think that Hitler's an atheist and Communism has to do with trying to force atheist views down people's throats.

Ah don't worry chances are they already do. Although if they are creationists though the will probably use Galvasean's quote at some stage. I can see the headlines on answeringenesis.ie now.

'Millitant Dinosaur-Loving Atheist Finally Admits Communist - Nazi -Atheism Conspiracy;

Húrin

This reminds me of a discussion on the other forum:

Wicknight wrote:

The argument that because we are here we were meant to be here simply shows the egotistical view point that a lot of believers come from (not entirely unwarranted, we have evolved to consider ourselves important as a survival instinct). But it would be a mistake to consider that because we feel we are inherently important that means we actually are.

There is little evidence to suggest that from the universes point of view we are more than one of many complex chemical reactions. The fact that this may be unpleasant to some explains why they would embrace a religion that teaches otherwise, but it doesn't justify the idea taht the universe is different than how it looks.

Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance. Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.


Zillah, Humanism is a secularised version of Christian teleology, as persuasively argued by John Gray in his book Straw Dogs. It doesn't come from atheism, but from a desire to suppress the implications of atheism.

marco_polo

Húrin wrote: »

This reminds me of a discussion on the other forum:



Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance. Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.


Zillah, Humanism is a secularised version of Christian teleology, as persuasively argued by John Gray in his book Straw Dogs. It doesn't come from atheism, but from a desire to suppress the implications of atheism.

Why when discussing objective morality must theists alway fall back on the super easy options of killing or child abuse as their only examples?

pH

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance. Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.

I'm confused, isn't this Christianity's current (and historic) position? Is the Bishop annoyed that atheism is moving in on his turf? Are you and him moaning that all these non-religious reasons for mass killing are inferior to your religious ones?

pts

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance. Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.

I would fully agree with Wicknight on that point. However I wouldn't necessary draw the same conclusion as you have.
I don't think it's a particularly human trait not to kill someone in their own species on sight. In fact I can't think of any animal that does that (even though there are probably a few)
I would argue that animals don't think they are some kind of elevated species in the universe, or think that there is a God judging them and because of that don't kill their own. I would argue that that is evolved behaviour. Therefore humans don't need to think they are objectively important to think that killing other humans is wrong.

Nodin

live2thewire wrote: »

stop aiming this **** at the op, he thinks this guy is talking ****.

Hail, Caesar.

Hurin wrote:

Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong.

Doesn't nessecarily follow. As we're (generally) the most intelligent sentient life form on the planet, are each unique, and are given but one relatively short span its indeed a grave thing to 'bump off' any of us. There is no God to sort us out, as it were, no recompense for earthly suffering, no-rebirth and no eternal life. I'd say those were compelling reasons for being careful to keep the safety on.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance. Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.

While I wouldn't on the face of it disagree with this, I think you are giving the Bishop credit for too much thought.

The Bishop wrote:

“Where God is denied, or opposed, soon Man and his dignity will also be denied and disregarded.”

His comments are a straightforward 'godlessness leads to lawlessness' sentiment.

The lack of a deity does remove our self-proclaimed importance and a fixed moral code, but fortunately we have evolved a compunction with regard to killing one another and other anti-social activities.

And of course the Bishop doesn't mention that whether or not what he says is true has no bearing on whether theism is made up or not.

pH

Dades wrote: »

The lack of a deity does remove our self-proclaimed importance and a fixed moral code, but fortunately we have evolved a compunction with regard to killing one another and other anti-social activities.

This is just not true, I truly cannot understand how you or anyone can claim that a deity gives anyone a 'fixed moral code'. Pretty much everything that we find abhorrent has been at one time justified by belief in a deity, including paedophilia, mass murder, rape, slavery and genocide.

Now you could argue that all these can be allowed under a 'moral code', although it would be probably better termed an immoral code, and you probably could play with words and argue that these ever-changing codes are indeed somehow 'fixed' at each instance in time but it's clearly just not possible to go from the statement "God exists" to a moral code in any meaningful way.

Dades

pH wrote: »

This is just not true, I truly cannot understand how you or anyone can claim that a deity gives anyone a 'fixed moral code'.

tbh I was willing to overlook that particular elephant in the room for simplicity's sake.

Now we're off though!

Tigger

Dades wrote: »

Do us a favour and turn down your Opressometer. Nobody thinks you're the Bishop of Whereveritis.

i did

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance. Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.

The religious really do have a hang up about objectivity. A human being doesn't need objective worth for a person to consider them very important.

Zillah, Humanism is a secularised version of Christian teleology, as persuasively argued by John Gray in his book Straw Dogs. It doesn't come from atheism, but from a desire to suppress the implications of atheism.

Jesus wasn't the first or the last to preach compassion. Christianity does not have the monopoly on respect for human life. Atheism has no implications unless you're a sociopath , in which case you have all sorts of problems regardless.

gaynorvader

Morality is born of society's rules, and many societies are influenced by religion, this leads to morality being influenced by religion. This is why I find it strange that in earlier centuries, the church believed nakedness to be immoral. In the Bible, didn't Adam and Eve get ejected from the Garden of Eden because God caught them wearing clothes and deduced they'd eaten the forbidden fruit(so he probably wasn't everywhere or omnipotent at that time)? Surely then, God doesn't think nudity is bad then?

Dades

gaynorvader wrote: »

Surely then, God doesn't think nudity is bad then?

More importantly, why would an omnipotent, omniscient entity who transcends time and space, and is responsible for the creation of the entire universe actually give a damn what us monkeys are using since our fur fell off.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.

Do you have a problem with subjectivism? Can you not imagine a society that finds murder and rape subjectively wrong and therefore, it is made law accordingly?

Also you seem to be making the false assumption that what is true is necessarily going to be beneficial for humans. This is hardly the case, reality does not care whether we agree with it or not. Irregardless of your opinion that without universal morality atheists would become rabid murderers, it still doesn't mean your sense of reality is any more correct.

You are falsely weighing up 2 outcomes, viewing the one that you think is more desirable and assuming this also means it is proportionally more correct. This is a complete logical fallacy.

Selkies

Within the third reich all that was permitted on the alter of a church was a sword and a copy of mein kampf.

During the crusades, the Bible was in latin.

In Stalinist Russia, the Bible was illegal.

The bishop has a point, Christianity presents many obstacles to authoritarian regimes and genocide.
The illusion that there is one with power over you who can see everything you do gives you an unparalleled sense of consequence to every action you take.

I guess what I'd argue is that there are other things that cause this sense of consequence that are far more practical.

philologos

live2thewire wrote: »

These are the words of the Bishop of Ausburg.

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20090413-18607.html

I agree with the Bishop on this one.

Where God has been suppressed the value of life seems to be lessened in a lot of respects. The dignity of man in relation to sexuality in particular has been lessened as people pursue more liberal agendas to these things other than the one which has been revealed to man. Just take a look, prostitution, one night stands, increases in the rates of STI infections, a departure from the traditional family unit, adultery being seen as acceptable, monogamy seen as archaic. I am not saying that atheists, and agnostics advocate this, but rather what I would advocate is the view that as we have seen increased secularism we have seen increased liberalism concerning these issues. That's just one of many areas that one could raise concerning the topic.

Then one could look at the resorting to drugs and alcohol to suppress pain, and the despair of having unfulfilled questions in peoples lives. I just can't help but feeling that God can help them, and that God will help them. This attitude isn't seen as an option for people in many cases however.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Then one could look at the resorting to drugs and alcohol to suppress pain, and the despair of having unfulfilled questions in peoples lives.

I agree look at Irish society of course I don't think turning to religion provides any answers but solidarity and community in for want of a better word not-knowing-but-a-good-feelingness (don't want to use the work beginning with i it always seems to strong to me).

Jakkass wrote: »

I just can't help but feeling that God can help them, and that God will help them. This attitude isn't seen as an option for people in many cases however.

Again I don't think its God more Christianity/Islam/Buddhism and where religion is absent I think there is a massive void in terms of community and solidarity in Ireland anyway.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

More importantly, why would an omnipotent, omniscient entity who transcends time and space, and is responsible for the creation of the entire universe actually give a damn what us monkeys apes are using since our fur fell off.

FYP

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Just take a look, prostitution, one night stands, increases in the rates of STI infections, a departure from the traditional family unit, adultery being seen as acceptable, monogamy seen as archaic.

Still and all though, we're now living in the longest period of uninterrupted peace in continental Europe since before christianity acquired control of the Roman Empire.

If it comes down to people having to have sex with each other instead of going out and organizing international-level mass-slaughters every few years, then frankly, I'll take the sex anytime.

Out of interest, who has ever said that adultery is acceptable? Apart from religious preachers telling religious believers that atheists think this, of course.