The Threat of Atheism

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

But Christianity unifies people right?

It has done yes. I believe Catholics are my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I don't agree with some of the teachings of the Catholic Church. I thought that would be quite easy to comprehend?

Edit: If all the posts on this thread are going to be merely people nitpicking about minor issues rather than the points at hand, you can count me out of the discussion. I should be really studying for my next college exam anyway

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't a "quibble". This is a Catholic point of view. I'm personally a Protestant I'm not going to hold myself liable to what happens in other denominations and I shouldn't be. There are 500 million Protestants worldwide, and they account for 5% of the Republic's population. It's a rather sizable chunk of Christians you are excluding.

Hell, let's just focus on the Bible then, shall we? Corinthians specifies that women exist for men. In Judges we see gang rape used as a means of "humbling" women. Timothy states that women must be silent, may not teach and may never have authority over a man. Ephesians specifies that a woman must submit to her husband. The list goes on and on. Christianity only unites those who submit.

Well you are sinning. That's not discrimination you have opted yourself out. Christianity has unified several different groups of people throughout history.

So did Hitler. That doesn't mean that Christianity is an effective force of unity in modern society.

No I don't consider that unifying. However, there have been numerous incidents when violence hasn't been used. Like say, when the Apostles spread Christianity from Jerusalem. I uphold true Christianity as in the Bible if people want to violate it that's fine but don't put it across as being in anyway Christlike. These attacks were motivated by greed not by Christ or His teachings. Just like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc were motivated by greed and power not atheism. I will however continue to use that example if you and other atheists use fallacious examples concerning Christianity however.

So, you're defining Christianity as a uniting force, and therefore anything that doesn't unite people is not real Christianity? A handy little house of cards you're building for yourself, but it ignores the practical reality that throughout history, and into the modern age, the various subdivisions of Christianity have been a source of strife between each other and the rest of humanity.

Yes, of course there have been instances where Christianity has been a unifying force, but we need to look at the trend throughout history, and that trends shows a massively discriminatory, violent and socially divisive institution. The very fact that you can say "Oh no those other Christians are doing it wrong, they should do things my way" only further supports my position, you can't even get along with each other.

It's still ludicrous.

I seek that you provide statistics from atheist majority nations including China, North Korea, and other rogue states in the Far East. Otherwise you are being dishonest.

The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it ludicrous! The facts are there, do you have an actual argument against the UN study or are you just going to keep arbitrarily dismissing it? If you had actually bothered reading the article you would see that it deliberately highlights the difference between nations with high amounts of voluntary atheism such as Sweden or the Netherlands, and totalitarian states which enforce atheism, such as China or North Korea.* The point of the study is to refute the claim that when a nation turns away from God they lose their morality and are likely to suffer societal decline. It's been shown to be quite the opposite.

As for the whole abortion topic, I only mentioned it because I disagree that the situation is as simple as "Abortion is wrong, atheists support abortion, therefore atheists are immoral", as the OP was maintaining.


*What the article says on the matter: "One must always be careful, of course, to distinguish between totalitarian nations where atheism is forced upon an unwilling population (such as in North Korea, China, Vietnam, and the former Soviet states) and open, democratic nations where atheism is freely chosen by a well-educated population (as in Sweden, the Netherlands, or Japan). The former nations' nonreligion, which can be described as "coercive atheism," is plagued by all that comes with totalitarianism: corruption, economic stagnation, censorship, depression, and the like. However, nearly every nation with high levels of "organic atheism" is a veritable model of societal health."

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Hell, let's just focus on the Bible then, shall we? Corinthians specifies that women exist for men. In Judges we see gang rape used as a means of "humbling" women. Timothy states that women must be silent, may not teach and may never have authority over a man. Ephesians specifies that a woman must submit to her husband. The list goes on and on. Christianity only unites those who submit.

I'd like you to cite those passages. I agree with Ephesians, you're being selective with quoting that passage. What does it say concerning the husbands role to the wife?

You'd need to cite 1 Corinthians, as it is clear that women have served God throughout the Bible from Miriam to Priscilla. Nice that you exclude anything from Galatians concerning male and female being one in Christ Jesus isn't it? (3:28)

I'd like you to clarify Judges. You and others have had problems comparing sin as described in the Old Testament with something that is advocated from God. I want to clear this up. If you are correct I will take my humble pie and eat it.

Zillah wrote: »

So did Hitler. That doesn't mean that Christianity is an effective force of unity in modern society.

Religion is actually more effective in bringing people to united moral norms as opposed to secularism. Atheist philosophers such as Jurgen Habermas have even noted this much.

Zillah wrote: »

So, you're defining Christianity as a uniting force, and therefore anything that doesn't unite people is not real Christianity? A handy little house of cards you're building for yourself, but it ignores the practical reality that throughout history, and into the modern age, the various subdivisions of Christianity have been a source of strife between each other and the rest of humanity.

Throughout history Christianity has also united. Distortionists in atheism and other religions have also divided people. I don't say that atheism has divided people though. Distortionists have.

Zillah wrote: »

Yes, of course there have been instances where Christianity has been a unifying force, but we need to look at the trend throughout history, and that trends shows a massively discriminatory, violent and socially divisive institution. The very fact that you can say "Oh no those other Christians are doing it wrong, they should do things my way" only further supports my position, you can't even get along with each other.

I'm not referring to the Church, I'm referring to Christianity.

Zillah wrote: »

The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it ludicrous! The facts are there, do you have an actual argument against the UN study or are you just going to keep arbitrarily dismissing it? If you had actually bothered reading the article you would see that it deliberately highlights the difference between nations with high amounts of voluntary atheism such as Sweden or the Netherlands, and totalitarian states which enforce atheism, such as China or North Korea.* The point of the study is to refute the claim that when a nation turns away from God they lose their morality and are likely to suffer societal decline. It's been shown to be quite the opposite.

You're being absurd now. Sweden and the Netherlands are not atheist states. They are secular. Secular != atheist. North Korea advocates state atheism. Don't be selective with which countries you pick. Be consistent. The UN are operating with a bias if they aren't allowing these to be considered. As I say equal amount of statistics which show benefit in religion in several respects.

Zillah wrote: »

As for the whole abortion topic, I only mentioned it because I disagree that the situation is as simple as "Abortion is wrong, atheists support abortion, therefore atheists are immoral", as the OP was maintaining.

Danke schoen. That's fine by me.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd like you to cite those passages. I agree with Ephesians, you're being selective with quoting that passage. What does it say concerning the husbands role to the wife?

You'd need to cite 1 Corinthians, as it is clear that women have served God throughout the Bible from Miriam to Priscilla. Nice that you exclude anything from Galatians concerning male and female being one in Christ Jesus isn't it? (3:28)

I'd like you to clarify Judges. You and others have had problems comparing sin as described in the Old Testament with something that is advocated from God. I want to clear this up. If you are correct I will take my humble pie and eat it.

Heh, you think I actually read all those passages. I've encountered plenty of sexist quotes from the Bible in the past and did a google search for "Bible quotes women", I'm sure you can do research yourself. Regardless of whether the sexist tone is the "true meaning" or not (which I'm sure would be your approach as we have seen in the past: "While this passage may seem to be saying horrendous, unacceptable things, I think you'll find that everything is just spiffing if you twist your brain like this..."), the fact remains that many Christians (maybe not you and yours) have used the Bible as justification for sexist lifestyles.

Religion is actually more effective in bringing people to united moral norms as opposed to secularism. Atheist philosophers such as Jurgen Habermas have even noted this much.

The facts say otherwise.

Throughout history Christianity has also united. Distortionists in atheism and other religions have also divided people. I don't say that atheism has divided people though. Distortionists have.

What the hell is a distortionist?

I'm not referring to the Church, I'm referring to Christianity.

I have no idea how this is a response to my statement that Christianity has shown a historical trend of divisiveness.

You're being absurd now. Sweden and the Netherlands are not atheist states. They are secular. Secular != atheist. North Korea advocates state atheism. Don't be selective with which countries you pick. Be consistent. The UN are operating with a bias if they aren't allowing these to be considered. As I say equal amount of statistics which show benefit in religion in several respects.

I...I'm not sure what to say. You seem to have gotten really confused, so I'll just restate what the UN Human Development Index has shown us: Levels of voluntary atheism are positively correlated with societal health. That is to say that in nations where they are a large number of voluntary atheists there tends to be less crime, higher income per capita, lower infant mortality rates, greater literacy etc.

You'd probably understand better if you actually read the article we've been discussing for the last two pages.

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Heh, you think I actually read all those passages. I've encountered plenty of sexist quotes from the Bible in the past and did a google search for "Bible quotes women", I'm sure you can do research yourself. Regardless of whether the sexist tone is the "true meaning" or not (which I'm sure would be your approach as we have seen in the past: "While this passage may seem to be saying horrendous, unacceptable things, I think you'll find that everything is just spiffing if you twist your brain like this..."), the fact remains that many Christians (maybe not you and yours) have used the Bible as justification for sexist lifestyles.

Most of these quotes that you google from atheist sites on youtube are actually strawmen of what the Bible is actually saying in those contexts. It's highly stupid to gullibly read from a google site instead of actually reading from the Bible yourself. It's kinda like being dictated how you should interpret the Bible by the Church instead of taking the understanding that you should read it yourself. If you are going to argue using verses I expect for you to have read them yourself. That's the only way I can really reason about doing this discussion. It's not a discussion at all if you get it from google. I can do the same from Christian websites but I choose not to as to learn something.

Zillah wrote: »

The facts say otherwise.

No they don't, not in any respect. I've cited my source. How about you do the same. Pick up "Inclusion of the Others" by Habermas if you want to see his understanding of how secular philosophy should be. I don't agree with it mainly, but he notes that religion has been hugely successful in uniting peoples moral values. In a pluralistic society he says that the God's eye view of morality must end though.

Zillah wrote: »

What the hell is a distortionist?

Someone who distorts an ideology for their own personal gain. You would probably refer to them as "fundementalists" but I think that is too generous a title. Fundementalists means that people hold Christianity as fundemental. If you are a distortionist this is the opposite of what you are doing however.

Zillah wrote: »

I have no idea how this is a response to my statement that Christianity has shown a historical trend of divisiveness.

Christianity doesn't. Human nature does.

Zillah wrote: »

I...I'm not sure what to say. You seem to have gotten really confused, so I'll just restate what the UN Human Development Index has shown us: Levels of voluntary atheism are positively correlated with societal health. That is to say that in nations where they are a large number of voluntary atheists there tends to be less crime, higher income per capita, lower infant mortality rates, greater literacy etc.

I call nonsense. I would accept that in cases of religious freedom in general this is true. There are numerous numerous reports that show that educational attainment among Christians who attend church is higher than the average. There are numerous reports which contradict what you say. Therefore I can call it inconclusive.

Zillah wrote: »

You'd probably understand better if you actually read the article we've been discussing for the last two pages.

I can cite a lot of articles too, doesn't mean that they all have merit. I will read it when I get time however.

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

I call nonsense. I would accept that in cases of religious freedom in general this is true. There are numerous numerous reports that show that educational attainment among Christians who attend church is higher than the average. There are numerous reports which contradict what you say. Therefore I can call it inconclusive.

Then link us to them so we can compare the study sizes, the methods used and the strength of the statistical analyses. It's only inconclusive if equally strong studies are contradicting under identical conditions.

Also, I know it was ages ago but...

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think the purpose in the mind of Stalin for persecuting people of religious faith was? State atheism clearly.

Hell no. His goal was to hijack the fervent faith the people placed in religions and channel it into the state. Atheism is a pre-requisite for that, but atheism was not the goal, it was a tool to be used towards another goal entirely. An extreme form of totalitarian communism, in which the state was the recipient of the bulk of the people's faith and adoration. That was the goal. There is no love but love of Big Brother...

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

It has done yes. I believe Catholics are my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I don't agree with some of the teachings of the Catholic Church. I thought that would be quite easy to comprehend?

Edit: If all the posts on this thread are going to be merely people nitpicking about minor issues rather than the points at hand, you can count me out of the discussion. I should be really studying for my next college exam anyway

Yep cause the Catholics and the Protestants have lived side by side in peace throughout history.

Behold the unifying power of Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

philologos

The Troubles were more to do with ethnicity than actually any religious differences.

You are correct on the former two. I am able to concede that. I can also cite a lot of cases where atheism was used as an excuse to divide. Distortionism at work.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You're being absurd now. Sweden and the Netherlands are not atheist states. They are secular. Secular != atheist. North Korea advocates state atheism. Don't be selective with which countries you pick. Be consistent. The UN are operating with a bias if they aren't allowing these to be considered. As I say equal amount of statistics which show benefit in religion in several respects.

The whole point he's making is that in Sweden and the Netherlands many people choose to be atheists and things are chugging along just fine, not that the states themselves are atheist. Places like China and North Korea are totalitarian states that control every aspect of their citizens' lives, which leads to a bad society, and part of the way they control people's lives happens to be enforced atheism. A state where many people have voluntarily rejected god and one where people are afraid to say anything in case they get executed are two very different things

If there was a state where fundamentalist christians executed atheists you would just dismiss them as distortionists

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The Troubles were more to do with ethnicity than actually any religious differences.

You are correct on the former two. I am able to concede that. I can also cite a lot of cases where atheism was used as an excuse to divide. Distortionism at work.

I'm sure you can. That does not change the fact that christianity has been used many times to divide people. It's easy to say christianity is a uniting force when you ignore all the times it wasn't with an excuse about distortionists. The best you can say is that in theory christianity is a uniting force but in practice it's a very different story

If you look at communism written down on paper it looks like a fantastic idea for a utopian society. It works in theory but in practice people with agendas get in the way and we can all see the results. So christianity is a uniting force in the same way that communism leads to utopia

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

The Troubles were more to do with ethnicity than actually any religious differences.

Yea you can debate all you want whether religion was the cause of the troubles, what isn't debatable is the fact that very pious Christians on both sides killed, maimed and discriminated against each other with gleeful abandon. Christianity does not make people behave well.

Now you can bore me to death with a "No true Scotsman" argument if you like, the fact remains that in NI, and indeed in Rwanda, Christianity did nothing to prevent some of the nastiest and inhumane behaviour the world has ever seen.

philologos

Were they really very pious? I'm not so sure that we have established that there is anything pious about distortionism at all.

You can debate all you want about whether or not atheism was the cause of Stalins mistreatment of religious groups, what isn't debatable is the fact that atheists maimed and discriminated against eachother with gleeful abandon. Atheism does not cause people to behave well.

You're full of it, and I can be too ^^

Christianity has changed the world in powerful and great deeds in charity and in mission. Atheism has never had such a feat. So I'm calling nonsense. Absolute nonsense infact. You can deceive yourselves as much as you want. What a joke of a discussion if we have to descend to childish tit for tat. I'm out.

Galvasean

Jakkass wrote: »

Were they really very pious? I'm not so sure that we have established that there is anything pious about distortionism at all.

You can debate all you want about whether or not atheism was the cause of Stalins mistreatment of religious groups, what isn't debatable is the fact that atheists maimed and discriminated against eachother with gleeful abandon. Atheism does not cause people to behave well.

You're full of it, and I can be too ^^

Except atheism never claims to cause people to behave well. Christianity on the other hand never shuts up trying to convince us that it does.

pH

Galvasean wrote: »

Except atheism never claims to cause people to behave well. Christianity on the other hand never shuts up trying to convince us that it does.

Yep, if you told me a serial killer or despot was an atheist, I'd not be surprised, however lacking religion in my opinion seems to at least remove one reason to be nasty to your fellow man (and still feel smug and content about it at night).

Jackass wrote:

You're full of it, and I can be too ^^

Oh name calling and insults, from a Christian no less. I thought there was some rule about being nice and critiquing the post not the poster, however the current mods here will regardless let it slip as you didn't dare to insult a mod, and we all know mods stick together.

philologos

pH wrote: »

Oh name calling and insults, from a Christian no less. I thought there was some rule about being nice and critiquing the post not the poster, however the current mods here will regardless let it slip as you didn't dare to insult a mod, and we all know mods stick together.

How on earth is it an insult to tell someone that they are full of nonsense when that is clearly the case?

I wish you all the best, but the discussion on this forum has become tiresome. I will be taking my leave

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

The Troubles were more to do with ethnicity than actually any religious differences.

If christianity was the great unifying force you think it is, why didn't it unify the Christians in the North? Why did it play a role in the divisions at all?

Jakkass wrote: »

You are correct on the former two. I am able to concede that. I can also cite a lot of cases where atheism was used as an excuse to divide. Distortionism at work.

Please, name them.

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity has changed the world in powerful and great deeds in charity and in mission.

Can name one of these great charities or deed (tangilble rather than spiritual if you can) that are eve close to equal to the Divisiveness of the Religious wars in Europe?

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheism has never had such a feat.

No-one claimed it does.

The only thing anyone's claiming is that an Atheistic/secular society won't go mad and explode into rioting and mass murders (or be that much different than the one we have now.).

Galvasean

King Mob wrote: »

The only thing anyone's claiming is that a non-forced Atheistic*/secular society won't go mad and explode into rioting and mass murders (or be that much different than the one we have now.).

* Just taught I'd edit that before someone tries to play the Stalin card again.

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

How on earth is it an insult to tell someone that they are full of nonsense when that is clearly the case?

I wish you all the best, but the discussion on this forum has become tiresome. I will be taking my leave

' riddance

(don't let the door hit you on the way out)

Borneo Fnctn

Jakkass wrote: »

I wish you all the best, but the discussion on this forum has become tiresome. I will be taking my leave

At last! Now we can get down to the real business of agreeing with each other and patting each other on the back.

Dades

pH wrote: »

Oh name calling and insults, from a Christian no less. I thought there was some rule about being nice and critiquing the post not the poster, however the current mods here will regardless let it slip as you didn't dare to insult a mod, and we all know mods stick together.

Jeez, what's your beef?

A Christian told someone they were talking nonsense and you want Mod intervention? Seriously, grow a pair. The reverse happens 10 times a day.

Matt Holck

It just seems the conversation turned from " The Threat of Atheism"
to whether christainity is a unifying good force

I don't think any group has a monopoly on receiving abuse

Húrin

Dinner wrote: »

So what your saying there, is that you're afraid that people will have to actually think and use their own judgement rather than blindly being told what to do and what to believe.

I would welcome a secular society that promotes this kind of critical thinking. Much more dangerous is a religious society where people
a) follow the teachings of a very old book.
b) follow the orders of a limited number of men with power

Besides, there are many religions that people will happliy kill each other for, but there would be none of that in a secular society. Giving one less reason for people to kill each other.

Critical thinking and blind following are available in both religious and secular societies. Secularism is no guard against lethal fanaticism either, since there are plenty of ideologies that have nothing to do with religion that people kill for. Personally I think that these characteristics in society are much more determined by economics than by religion or lack of it.

Secularism does not cause more people to think for themselves. Most people do not think that critically for themselves - our species has a powerful urge towards conformity. In a predominantly atheist society, it is the religious minority who are more likely to be thinking critically. In reality, secular countries have mainly replaced religion not with critical thinking but with capitalism, where products are advertised as happiness, and they are promoted by celebrities (cult of saints).

However, your placing of objective value on individualism and on tolerance simply demonstrates that atheism, contrary to the OP's assumptions, does not cause functional relativism. People's moral consciences are too strong for that to happen. They just explain their morality by means other than religion. So atheism is not really a threat.

herya wrote: »

False. There are also small issues of so called decency, human rights, humanism. All secular.

As the naturalist John Gray argues persuasively in Straw Dogs, humanism is not really secular.

You don't have much faith in people do you? I'm scared of people like you, who won't be decent with no whip in sight.

Why should anyone have faith in people?

musician wrote: »

Without God perhaps:-

- young women might not have suffered appallingly in 'Magdalen Laundries'
- young boys might not have gotten beaten to a pulp by "Christian" Brothers
- people of all ages wouldn't be killing each other over a piece of ground
- altar boys might have just been...well altar boys
- thousands might still be working in two tall buildings in New York
- approx. 100,000 civilians in Iraq might be alive
- George W. Bush might have been laughed at when he claimed to believe in God and hence might never have been president of the USA.
- less South African's would be dying of AIDS
- we might be looking forward to Back to the Future Episode 10 starring a fit and healthy Michael J. Fox.

Who knows?

What pointless speculation. There is no non-religious history to compare with religious history, so I might as well say that without God, washing machines, skyscrapers, nation states, etc might not exist. Without God people would most definitely kill each other over land and thus resources. That's the way of the world.

Húrin

ConmanTheKiller wrote: »

Secondly how can someone fear a secular socicity when theocracies have caused the most suffering, deaths and the most suppression of free speech and thought.

This isn't really accurate at all. Most suffering, deaths and the most suppression of free speech and thought have been caused by secular governments in the 20th century.

Mickeroo

Húrin wrote: »

This isn't really accurate at all. Most suffering, deaths and the most suppression of free speech and thought have been caused by secular governments in the 20th century.

People will find reasons to start wars regardless, this is a moot point from both sides of the fence.

EDIT: Whoopsies,just saw you pretty much said that in another post,never mind.

mewso

Húrin wrote: »

What pointless speculation. There is no non-religious history to compare with religious history, so I might as well say that without God, washing machines, skyscrapers, nation states, etc might not exist. Without God people would most definitely kill each other over land and thus resources. That's the way of the world.

Thanks for expanding on my use of the word "perhaps". Maybe not everyone understood it's intended meaning.

A Primal Nut

smidgy wrote: »

Hi Guys,

I am a Christian and feel threatened by an atheistic society. The reason for this is that I see atheism as destructive force since it enforces the belief that there is no eternal responsibility for ones actions.

In Christianity there is no eternal responibility for ones actions either. Instead, belief in God is all that matters. This is much worse than atheism whose moral code is at least based on logic.

Besides, I don't believe that a moral code which encourages slavery and damn people with bad eyesight or crushed genitals is of any use to modern society.

eoin5

As Hurin indicated I think were not seeing the forest from the trees here. The problems can be generalised to large scale dogmatic following, religions and secular ideologies each being subsets.

Dades

eoin5 wrote: »

The problems can be generalised to large scale dogmatic following, religions and secular ideologies each being subsets.

Just to reiterate, this thread is debating "The Threat of Atheism".

Atheism is neither an ideology, nor an endorsement of secularism.

eoin5

Dades wrote: »

Just to reiterate, this thread is debating "The Threat of Atheism".

Atheism is neither an ideology, nor an endorsement of secularism.

True, nor is theism an actual religion but chances are that if you are a theist then you follow some religious ideology. The percieved threat from atheism could be attributed to what it would statistically correllate to in a similar way. I guess people just use a simple yes or no question of belief for fuzzily labelling mindsets.

mewso

Dades wrote: »

Just to reiterate, this thread is debating "The Threat of Atheism". .

I think it's really discussing people's fears of an Atheist society (or perhaps more accurately a non-religious society) more so than any specific definition of Atheism.