Is atheism a threat to humanity?

[Shia Islam]

Before starting this topic, let me say this: I know that atheists may say the opposite is true. Although this thread is not to discuss its topic in relation to religion, let me only give this example: during the golden age of the Islamic empire, despite what many people may think, the majority of the citizens of that empire were non-Muslims!

The Christians, the Jews, and the Zoroastrians, were all allowed to keep their lands in their hands and keep their places of worship, and were not enforced convert to the new religion. The tax (Jizya) they were paying was marginal compared to the hefty taxes they were used to pay to the Roman and Pertain empires. Indeed that is why many of the citizens of those empires have welcomed and even supported the newcomers. And if it was not for this support, the small number of Muslim Bedouins and other Arabs with their ill equipped forces and poor strategies would not have been able to defeat the two great world powers of that time.

Now, let us return to our main topic, there is a real inherent ethical problem with atheists. They have no red lines coming from an outside source, such as religion. So they follow their own minds, While we all know that the human minds are limited. and humans are weak in nature, and their decisions may influenced by many factors. Even the opinions of the masses may be misguided by some evil powers.

What do you think?!

 

[Spirit of Light]

Before starting this topic, let me say this: I know that atheists may say the opposite is true. Although this thread is not to discuss its topic in relation to religion, let me only give this example: during the golden age of the Islamic empire, despite what many people may think, the majority of the citizens of that empire were non-Muslims!

The Christians, the Jews, and the Zoroastrians, were all allowed to keep their lands in their hands and keep their places of worship, and were not enforced convert to the new religion. The tax (Jizya) they were paying was marginal compared to the hefty taxes they were used to pay to the Roman and Pertain empires. Indeed that is why many of the citizens of those empires have welcomed and even supported the newcomers. And if it was not for this support, the small number of Muslim Bedouins and other Arabs with their ill equipped forces and poor strategies would not have been able to defeat the two great world powers of that time.

Now, let us return to our main topic, there is a real inherent ethical problem with atheists. They have no red lines coming from an outside source, such as religion. So they follow their own minds, While we all know that the human minds are limited. and humans are weak in nature, and their decisions may influenced by many factors. Even the opinions of the masses may be misguided by some evil powers.

What do you think?!

I agree with what you said in your OP

 

[Howard Is]

What do you think?!

I think you afraid of your nature, and you are trying to turn that into a virtue.

 

[exchemist]

Before starting this topic, let me say this: I know that atheists may say the opposite is true. Although this thread is not to discuss its topic in relation to religion, let me only give this example: during the golden age of the Islamic empire, despite what many people may think, the majority of the citizens of that empire were non-Muslims!

The Christians, the Jews, and the Zoroastrians, were all allowed to keep their lands in their hands and keep their places of worship, and were not enforced convert to the new religion. The tax (Jizya) they were paying was marginal compared to the hefty taxes they were used to pay to the Roman and Pertain empires. Indeed that is why many of the citizens of those empires have welcomed and even supported the newcomers. And if it was not for this support, the small number of Muslim Bedouins and other Arabs with their ill equipped forces and poor strategies would not have been able to defeat the two great world powers of that time.

Now, let us return to our main topic, there is a real inherent ethical problem with atheists. They have no red lines coming from an outside source, such as religion. So they follow their own minds, While we all know that the human minds are limited. and humans are weak in nature, and their decisions may influenced by many factors. Even the opinions of the masses may be misguided by some evil powers.

What do you think?!

I think this is quite wrong.

It seems to me the moral codes of the religions are largely ways of expressing rules of behaviour for society, and wisdom for how to live an ultimately satisfying inner personal life.

There is no evidence that atheists do not abide by the rules of society, or that they do not think they are important. Atheists are not anarchists. As for inner life, my experience is that they vary in how they approach this - but then so too do individual followers of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and so on. I see no evidence that atheists are in any objective sense morally inferior to followers of religion.

I imagine you, as a muslim, must be embarrassed by the violence now unleashed on the world in the name of your religion. It is not a good time to suggest religious believers are morally superior, it seems to me.

 

[Howard Is]

While we all know that the human minds are limited. and humans are weak in nature,

Speak for yourself.

And, BTW, are you aware that your view is insulting and denigrates a huge number of people, including myself ?

Any sufficiently educated person, free to judge without fear of reprisal, understands that neither atheists nor the religious universally hold the high moral ground. Neither group is monolithic as regards morality and ethics.

In support of atheists, they are people who honestly admit that they do not believe the supernatural claims of religion, and have the courage to live their lives according to their conscience.

That is integrity

 

[joe1776]

We humans obviously have two sides to our moral nature, good and bad. The good side is guided by conscience (moral intuition). We are born with the basic structure.

The notion that our moral judgments are the product of our reasoning minds is a popular myth. The myth allows religious leaders to claim that they can teach moral conduct. The fact is that we are born knowing, for example, that it is wrong to intentionally harm innocent people. This prohibition covers all manner of acts: killing, theft, slavery, the treatment of women and so on.

Happily, conscience is winning the battle. The good side is winning. We humans are making moral progress. We are treating each other better now than at any time in our past.

The fact is that our opinions on religion, believer or non-believer, have no effect on the moral future of our species. If they did, we would still be stuck with the morals of the 2,000 year-old cultures depicted in the Torah, the Bible, the Quran and other old texts. Slavery would still be condoned, for example.

 

[Jedster]

Speak for yourself.

And, BTW, are you aware that your view is insulting and denigrates a huge number of people, including myself ?

Any sufficiently educated person, free to judge without fear of reprisal, understands that neither atheists nor the religious universally hold the high moral ground. Neither group is monolithic as regards morality and ethics.

In support of atheists, they are people who honestly admit that they do not believe the supernatural claims of religion, and have the courage to live their lives according to their conscience.

That is integrity

I have met a bunch of people from various religions who have told me they would happily murder others if not for the religious restriction. Scary, isn't it?!?!

 

[Mock Turtle]

Now, let us return to our main topic, there is a real inherent ethical problem with atheists. They have no red lines coming from an outside source, such as religion. So they follow their own minds, While we all know that the human minds are limited. and humans are weak in nature, and their decisions may influenced by many factors. Even the opinions of the masses may be misguided by some evil powers.

What do you think?!

Which is precisely why atheism, or a lack of belief in religious doctrines since they tend to go together, is not a threat to humanity. People do have to think through their actions, beliefs, etc., that forms their morality, rather than accepting such from some religious authority - which might or might not be of value, but often comes from some designated spiritual source with an unproven provenance. Not see any negativity within religious doctrines, even your own?

But anyway, atheism isn't the issue - it is religions claiming the moral high-ground when we know that morality exists without religious belief and most probably predates all religions anyway - especially the late-comers, like Islam.

PS Think that humans are weak and limited such as not to be capable of learning?

 

[Polymath257]

Now, let us return to our main topic, there is a real inherent ethical problem with atheists. They have no red lines coming from an outside source, such as religion. So they follow their own minds, While we all know that the human minds are limited. and humans are weak in nature, and their decisions may influenced by many factors. Even the opinions of the masses may be misguided by some evil powers.

What do you think?!

The problem is that the 'outside source' of religion is more limited than other human attempts to seek a moral foundation. I would *much* prefer someone who thinks through their moral issues instead of relying on a book or priest to decide them.

In addition to religion, there are large swaths of philosophy that can help inform us on moral issues. We can *and should* recognize our limitations, but religion is *one* of those limitations: it tends to encourage blind obedience as opposed to reasoned actions.

And tyrants are more than happy to use religion to suppress dissent if they can. So, in that context, religion becomes a tool of the evil powers. This has happened frequently in history (and even happens today).

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Before starting this topic, let me say this: I know that atheists may say the opposite is true. Although this thread is not to discuss its topic in relation to religion, let me only give this example: during the golden age of the Islamic empire, despite what many people may think, the majority of the citizens of that empire were non-Muslims!

Every society has had its ups and downs. Touting the ups is great and all but the key is how bad the downs are.

They have no red lines coming from an outside source, such as religion.

You realize a religion is just you using a red line coming from some person who liked to talk?

While we all know that the human minds are limited. and humans are weak in nature, and their decisions may influenced by many factors. Even the opinions of the masses may be misguided by some evil powers.

This, like the biblical concept of humanity being untrustworthy, causes some credibility issues with their own texts then. If humans are weak and limited why trust the religions they came up with?

 

[epronovost]

From a skeptical perspective, all forms of morality are a product of humans. There are no ''outside source''. All moral and ethical codes come from human philosophy or proto-philosophy. Religious morality is really just a sacralised, ritualised and glorified code designed by humans.

 

[Laika]

Before starting this topic, let me say this: I know that atheists may say the opposite is true. Although this thread is not to discuss its topic in relation to religion, let me only give this example: during the golden age of the Islamic empire, despite what many people may think, the majority of the citizens of that empire were non-Muslims!

The Christians, the Jews, and the Zoroastrians, were all allowed to keep their lands in their hands and keep their places of worship, and were not enforced convert to the new religion. The tax (Jizya) they were paying was marginal compared to the hefty taxes they were used to pay to the Roman and Pertain empires. Indeed that is why many of the citizens of those empires have welcomed and even supported the newcomers. And if it was not for this support, the small number of Muslim Bedouins and other Arabs with their ill equipped forces and poor strategies would not have been able to defeat the two great world powers of that time.

Now, let us return to our main topic, there is a real inherent ethical problem with atheists. They have no red lines coming from an outside source, such as religion. So they follow their own minds, While we all know that the human minds are limited. and humans are weak in nature, and their decisions may influenced by many factors. Even the opinions of the masses may be misguided by some evil powers.

What do you think?!

The overwhelming majority of atheists you meet today will adhere to some version of the "humanist" ethic that we are capable of conscience and moral judgement. They tend to be quite conventional and liberal in their political views and so will tolerate other belief based on recognising atheism is not an absolute conviction or statement of fact, but the best working hypothesis of the natural world.

However, the fear of atheists as amoral monsters is a longstanding and widespread one based on the assumption that having no god means having no morality. In a handful of cases, the marquis de Sade and fredirch Nietzsche for example, atheists have tested the moral boundaries and conventions of their time but they tended to be extremely individualistic and egotistical. So not people who gained a wide audience even if they might have a niche amongst western academics.

In the case of the communists of the 20th century, yes they were atheists, but it was based on an absolutist conviction that atheism is true and God couldn't, didn't and would never exist- a position profoundly heretical to the philosophical development of science since the 17th and 18th centuries. Western atheists tend to come from the tradition of John Locke and David Hume who are more agnostic whereas Marxists are an intellectual tradition of their own. They have so little in common it's worth treating them as separate entities entirely.

The philosophical differences between Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the "new atheists" (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, dennett and co) along with the likes of Bertrand Russell are deep, irreconcilable and centuries old. The latter have more bark than they bite, selling books and giving lectures rather than burning bibles and bombing churches. The former are, outside of the remaining communist countries, nearly extinct and struggling for relevance. The growth of scepticism, free thought and "agnostic" atheism does not signify an existential threat to humanity.

 

[epronovost]

In the case of the communists of the 20th century, yes they were atheists, but it was based on an absolutist conviction that atheism is true and God couldn't, didn't and would never exist- a position profoundly heretical to the philosophical development of science since the 17th and 18th centuries. Western atheists tend to come from the tradition of John Locke and David Hume who are more agnostic whereas Marxists are an intellectual tradition of their own. They have so little in common it's worth treating them as separate entities entirely.

I think this analysis is false. The communists opposition to religious organisations in China and especially in Russia is linked to the fact that the Orthodox Church was a powerful organisation that supported the Tsar and conservative elites. The Church was more than just a different set of belief, it was a political rival. In China the situation is more complex, Chinese attack on tibetan buddhism is, much like the USSR attacks on the Orthodox Church, based on the fact that Tibet was a theocracy before it was conquered and annexed. China also crack down a lot on organised cults like the Falun Gong which is opposed to communism. In China, cults like these were a drivers for revolts against autocracies from the Yellow Turban Rebellion in 184 AD to the Boxer Revolt in 1900. Marxist opposition to religion, especially organised religion doesn't derive from a stance on the existence of deities so much as for the fact that religion is a tool of control for conservatice aristocracies and autocrats hence the famous ''opium of the people'' quote of Marx.

 

[Audie]

Before starting this topic, let me say this: I know that atheists may say the opposite is true. Although this thread is not to discuss its topic in relation to religion, let me only give this example: during the golden age of the Islamic empire, despite what many people may think, the majority of the citizens of that empire were non-Muslims!

The Christians, the Jews, and the Zoroastrians, were all allowed to keep their lands in their hands and keep their places of worship, and were not enforced convert to the new religion. The tax (Jizya) they were paying was marginal compared to the hefty taxes they were used to pay to the Roman and Pertain empires. Indeed that is why many of the citizens of those empires have welcomed and even supported the newcomers. And if it was not for this support, the small number of Muslim Bedouins and other Arabs with their ill equipped forces and poor strategies would not have been able to defeat the two great world powers of that time.

Now, let us return to our main topic, there is a real inherent ethical problem with atheists. They have no red lines coming from an outside source, such as religion. So they follow their own minds, While we all know that the human minds are limited. and humans are weak in nature, and their decisions may influenced by many factors. Even the opinions of the masses may be misguided by some evil powers.

What do you think?!

Goddies have no external lines. It is a bucket of bs
to claim you do.

 

[Audie]

I agree with what you said in your OP

The tendency of " theists" to be profound bigots does not
need to be defined and underlined. We already know about it.

We are also aware of the subtext, that as atheists are
a "menace" they should be wiped out.

I did have one such tell me that he prays for Word that
it is time to start killing all the atheists. He'd have me
hanging from a lamp post. It is the god-given moral thing
to do, after all.

 

[Audie]

I think this is quite wrong.

It seems to me the moral codes of the religions are largely ways of expressing rules of behaviour for society, and wisdom for how to live an ultimately satisfying inner personal life.

There is no evidence that atheists do not abide by the rules of society, or that they do not think they are important. Atheists are not anarchists. As for inner life, my experience is that they vary in how they approach this - but then so too do individual followers of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and so on. I see no evidence that atheists are in any objective sense morally inferior to followers of religion.

As a muslim, I imagine you must be embarrassed by the violence now unleashed on the world in the name of your religion. It is not a good time to suggest religious believers are morally superior, it seems to me.

The Christians outnumber the atheists in prisons, not just
in total number, but by percent.

 

[HonestJoe]

Now, let us return to our main topic, there is a real inherent ethical problem with atheists. They have no red lines coming from an outside source, such as religion. So they follow their own minds, While we all know that the human minds are limited. and humans are weak in nature, and their decisions may influenced by many factors. Even the opinions of the masses may be misguided by some evil powers.

Let’s get the basics out of the way; Atheism just means not believing in any god or gods, nothing more and nothing less. Any given atheist can and will have a vast range of other characteristics, often vastly different to other atheists. Atheists can be religious. There are various religions that don’t involve (or don’t explicitly require) explicit belief in any gods.

So the question is really “Does religion implicitly make people more ethical?” and “Can anything that isn’t religion work just as well?”. I’d argue that religion as a general concept doesn’t automatically involve entirely ethical or positive elements. Plenty of groups and individuals have done horrific things on the basis that it was part of or influenced by their religion. That shouldn’t be surprising as religion is just a construct of those “limited and weak” human minds you mention.

There are also all sorts of social, cultural or political groupings, philosophies and structures which aren’t religions but can operate in very similar manners. I personally don’t see why they couldn’t be exactly the same kind of “outside source” influencing individual ethics and behaviour as actual religions, in both the positive and negative aspects. Once you strip away all the labels and groupings, we’re pretty much all the same.

 

[Iymus]

What do you think?!

Most High is Lawgiver and Purpose

Isa 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.

Man is of Law and Purpose.

With Atheism being the belief of no Creator; I believe the lawgiver is rejected and gradually we reject duty and purpose over time; But we still need some form of similitude of the Most High to function in society and avoid being possibly being taken advantage of by ego, pride, and lusts.

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

 

[Audie]

Once you strip away all the labels and groupings, we’re pretty much all the same.

Excepting some of those bigots who think their
beliefs make them better than other people.

 

[Terry Sampson]

What do you think?!

I think you are fortunate that you wrote your opinion here, on-line, and did not say it to anyone face-to-face.