Is atheism a threat to humanity?

[Howard Is]

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

Boom !

Let’s take this outside, LOL

 

[exchemist]

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

Can we have a reference for these statistics, so that we can see what conclusions, if any, can be drawn from them? For example, it would seem fairly important to see the religious statistics for the population from which the prisoners come. And is this worldwide, or for some particular country?

 

[Windwalker]

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,

There is a real inherent ethical problem with theists. They have no red lines coming from their own internal sense of right and wrong, such as is found in truly ethical and moral people. So they don't follow their own minds, and instead are led about by religious charismatic preachers who do their thinking for them.

This makes them far more dangerous to the world than atheists who can't claim a lack of responsibility for their immorality by claiming "God" sanctions their murdering of others in the name of God. The theists responsibility for their immorality towards others, can be pushed off on external authority, thus absolving themselves of any immoral actions. Atheism threatens that built-in excuse, and that is why they are dangerous to religion. They make the individual responsible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have a secret to share ...


We ALL follow our own minds when it comes to morality. Whether we are religious or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is atheism a threat to humanity?

No! And I say that as a religious human.

 

[Augustus]

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.... 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.

Atheism was a foundational principle of Marxism and played an important role as it placed humans at the top of the hierarchy. It wasn't simply incidental, or a pragmatic reaction to specific religious organisations, but something which underpinned their entire philosophy. There was a practical dimension too of course, but ultimately it was drive by a theoretical imperitive.

Lenin: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism"
Leon Trotsky: “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”.

Excerpts from Karl Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

"The criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.

The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being.

There therefore was no distinction between [Marxism's] philosophical views regarding atheism and its political views.

The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."

There can be no doubt that the fact that the new state of the USSR led by the communist party, with a program permeated by the spirit of militant atheism, gives the reason why this state is successfully surmounting the great difficulties that stand in its way - that neither "heavenly powers" nor the exhortations of all the priests in all the world can prevent its attaining its aims it has set itself

Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism"



It is furthermore imperative to put the propaganda of atheism on solid ground. You won't achieve much with the weapons of Marx and materialism, as we have seen. Materialism and religion are two different planes and they don't coincide. If a fool speaks from the heavens and the sage from a factory--they won't understand one another. The sage needs to hit the fool with his stick, with his weapon. Gorky, Letter to Stalin






Edit: In the interests of accuracy, I noticed I included this as part of a quote by Marx. Obviously he didn't say this as he was dead. The rest of the quote was Marx, but this was Yaroslawsky. Copied from one of my older posts as have discussed this numerous times and must have got jumbled up along the way.


There can be no doubt that the fact that the new state of the USSR led by the communist party, with a program permeated by the spirit of militant atheism, gives the reason why this state is successfully surmounting the great difficulties that stand in its way - that neither "heavenly powers" nor the exhortations of all the priests in all the world can prevent its attaining its aims it has set itself

 

[Revoltingest]

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

To be fair, religions do have their very many rules...greatly detailed
prescriptions & proscriptions, combined with parables about how
their god/gods treat us.
But as they war with other religions, those in their own religion, &
even against those with no religion, we observe some problems.

1) Their scriptures are so vague & conflicted that any desired act
can be justified, eg, killing the infidel for not believing, killing those
whose speech offends, enslaving people of the other tribe.
Such are their long histories.

2) Behavior of believers appears more driven by culture than
by their scripture. By point #1, whatever their culture is, their
scripture justifies, eg, "honor killing" of wayward daughters.

3) Moral behavior appears to be maximal in secular societies
wherein no religion dominates. This suggests that religions
themselves are the problem.
Caution: I realize that "moral behavior" is a matter of opinion.
Some would call a rigid theocracy the most moral, but I would
say it's the least moral because of the authoritarianism. So
there'll be some disagreement on #3.


So our friends who are believers shouldn't fear us any more
than they fear other religions. (Some fear is healthy....after
all, we're human....a violence prone species.)
At least we don't have the possibility that we're commanded to
jihad or crusades. We'll never sing "Onward Christian Soldiers".

 

[Altfish]

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?!

We may have no 'red lines' in your secluded world, but I can assure you we do. We believe in empathy, reciprocity and reason . We make decisions based on facts.

How many atheists have flown planes into buildings? How many atheists have killed doctors outside family planning clinics; I could go on. But my 'red lines' are better defined than many religious people's

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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 there is nothing worthy of discussion in this post, but it's title gave me a much needed laugh.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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!

And do you know what killed that golden age? More religion. This is from a Neil DeGrasseTyson lecture on naming rights:

“Of all the stars that have names, two-thirds of them have Arabic names. While the constellations are Greek and Roman, the stars’ names are Arabic. How does this happen? How do you get stars named with Arabic names? It happens because there was this particularly fertile period - this 300 year period [about 800-1100 AD] - when the intellectual center of the world was Baghdad. It was completely open to all visitors – all travelers. They were all there exchanging ideas, and it was that period where we had advances in engineering, biology, medicine, and mathematics. Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. They created a whole field called algebra - an Arabic word. All of this is traceable to this 300 year period.

“Ibn al-Hazen (965-1040 AD) was the first person ever to set down the rules of science. He created an error-correcting mechanism, a systematic and relentless way to sift out misconceptions in our thinking.

[al-Hazen:] "Finding truth is difficult and the road to it is rough. As seekers after truth, you will be wise to withhold judgment and not simply put your trust in the writings of the ancients. You must question and critically examine those writings from every side. You must submit only to argument and experiment and not to the sayings of any person. For every human being is vulnerable to all kinds of imperfection. As seekers after truth, we must also suspect16and question our own ideas as we perform our investigations, to avoid falling into prejudice or careless thinking. Take this course, and truth will be revealed to you.”

“And then, something happened. ’The 12th century brought the influence of the scholar al-Ghazali (1058-1111 AD), and out of his work you get the philosophy that mathematics is the work of the Devil. Nothing good can come of that philosophy. With that, combined with other sort-of philosophical codifications of what Islam was and would become, the entire intellectual foundation of that enterprise collapsed and it has not recovered since.’ ”

al-Hazen voiced the humanist position of skepticism ("not simply put your trust in the writings of the ancients") and empiricism ("You must submit only to argument and experiment and not to the sayings of any person"), and Arab culture bloomed. al-Ghazali represents the position of a backward religion ("mathematics is the work of the Devil"), and back into darkness and obscurity fell Arab intellectual culture. It's never recovered:

"As of 2018, twelve Nobel Prize laureates have been Muslims, more than half in the 21st century. Seven of the twelve laureates have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, while three have been for the sciences" Just three, two in chemistry and one in physics. Also the work of the Devil, no doubt.

Incidentally, in that same talk, Tyson goes on to point out that while the Greeks got to name the northern constellations and the Arabs the stars, by the 20th century, America assumed that role when mankind got around to identifying and naming the heaviest elements such as Einsteinium, Lawrencium, Californium, and Seaborgium.

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,

Training our own minds to think critically and following our own minds is what makes secular humanism an improvement over the so-called received wisdom of the religions, both intellectually and morally. We see that effect when we compare Christianity in the West to Islam in the East. Although Christianity and Islam closely resemble one another with their harsh, authoritarian, brutality, Christianity but not Islam was forced by the Enlightenment to accept humanist values such as church-state separation and freedom of and from religion. Before that, you had the Christian church orchestrating inquisitions and killing witches. That all ended with the rise of humanist values in the West that kicked the church out of government. Now, Christianity could become more civilized, and even claim these changes for itself as we see when we are told that the US Constitution is based in Christianity.

Unfortunately, your people haven't had the same benefit of humanist values, which accounts for why they're still cutting off hands, dropping people from high towers, throwing acid in one another's face, and burning one another alive in cages.

And there are those here in the West that like to al-Ghaziri it back into uncivilized brutality. Here's Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had:

"Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." -

This guy is actually complaining about his good Christian fun being taken from him by humanism, but he does make my point. This is what Christianity used to look like and what Islam looks like today. He wants to throw rocks at people until they are dead for not submitting to his harsh morality. He was born too late. Maybe he should move to the Middle East.

So please spare us the theistic moral high ground conceit. It was humanism that provided the proper moral framework that made life so much better for so many people, but not everywhere yet.

 

[RabbiO]

What do you think?!

You're wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

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?!

What do i think? I think your ignorance of atheism is an insult?

Atheists have their own red line, they don't need a god sitting on their shoulder to tell them what is right and what is wrong? They don't go
around blowing people up, they dont fly planes into buildings.

If thats what religion gives you then i am proud not to be a part of it.

BTW, the Roman empire was religious, not atheist. Not sure about Pertain, did you mean Persian?

 

[Quintessence]

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 don't understand, honestly, on multiple levels.

What are these "red lines?" I have no idea what you mean by that.

I also don't understand your framework for conceptualizing human behavior. All human behavior is driven by external and internal sources, regardless of (ir)religion or (a)theism. Everyone is influenced by outside sources, and everyone uses their own minds to process things. I don't understand what difference you are seeing between theists and atheists in this regard, especially when those terms are darned near meaningless anyway.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

And one might add to this that our being social creatures is the more likely origins of morality anyway, so a product of evolution as much as anything else.

 

[Nimos]

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?!

Atheist or none atheist, you can find idiots within both camps

But I think a vast majority of atheists, one way or another also refer to themselves as humanists. Which at least to me, seems like a rather good foundation to build societies on. That we as individuals take responsibility for our own actions and thrive towards doing good towards others, because we want to do good and change the world to the better. Compared to having to do good, because we are being told it is good, even if its clearly immoral.

So to me at least, building a society, where humans through rational thinking and shared experiences, can thrive and through constructive debates, can figure out, what we believe good is, and how we can improve on our wellbeing as a species, but also for the Earth and other lifeforms as well.
That to me seems a far superior way of doing things, compared to following rules from ancient books, which haven't kept up to date with our moral standards. And which makes people believe, that the only reason they can do good, is because someone tells them to do it. As they otherwise would be completely clueless about it,

It is the exact opposite of what we need, if we want improve humanity as a whole and learn how to live together in better harmony with ourselves and nature, we have to figure it out on our own.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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 taking a look at the percentage of those people serving time in federal prisons who are religious versus atheist may be telling. Here are some numbers for you:

Percentage of prisoners who are Muslim: 8.4%
Percentage of general population who are Muslim: 0.6%

Percentage of prisoners who are atheist: 0.1%
Percentage of general population who are atheist: 0.7%

Are Prisoners Less Likely To Be Atheists?

This should present something of a problem to you, because it suggests very strongly that a Muslim is about 14 times MORE likely to find themselves in prison than the overall population, while an atheist is about 14 times LESS likely to find themselves in prison than the overall population.

 

[Audie]

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

That would take some courage

To be fair, religions do have their very many rules...greatly detailed
prescriptions & proscriptions, combined with parables about how
their god/gods treat us.
But as they war with other religions, those in their own religion, &
even against those with no religion, we observe some problems.

1) Their scriptures are so vague & conflicted that any desired act
can be justified, eg, killing the infidel for not believing, killing those
whose speech offends, enslaving people of the other tribe.
Such are their long histories.

2) Behavior of believers appears more driven by culture than
by their scripture. By point #1, whatever their culture is, their
scripture justifies, eg, "honor killing" of wayward daughters.

3) Moral behavior appears to be maximal in secular societies
wherein no religion dominates. This suggests that religions
themselves are the problem.
Caution: I realize that "moral behavior" is a matter of opinion.
Some would call a rigid theocracy the most moral, but I would
say it's the least moral because of the authoritarianism. So
there'll be some disagreement on #3.


So our friends who are believers shouldn't fear us any more
than they fear other religions. (Some fear is healthy....after
all, we're human....a violence prone species.)
At least we don't have the possibility that we're commanded to
jihad or crusades. We'll never sing "Onward Christian Soldiers".

EXTERNAL, to the goddies, means given unto them by
the Supereme Almighty rule giver.

Which is a bucket. They make things up, or, as in
most cases, let someone else make things up for them
and then adopt their chosen version.

 

[viole]

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?!

Well, if losing your faith tomorrow might turn you into the equivalent of Hannibal the Cannibal, or Jack the Ripper, then....keep believing whatever you believe, by all means.

ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

I think taking a look at the percentage of those people serving time in federal prisons who are religious versus atheist may be telling. Here are some numbers for you:

Percentage of prisoners who are Muslim: 8.4%
Percentage of general population who are Muslim: 0.6%

Percentage of prisoners who are atheist: 0.1%
Percentage of general population who are atheist: 0.7%

Are Prisoners Less Likely To Be Atheists?

This should present something of a problem to you, because it suggests very strongly that a Muslim is about 14 times MORE likely to find themselves in prison than the overall population, while an atheist is about 14 times LESS likely to find themselves in prison than the overall population.

ha. That just proves discrimination, the musilms are being
picked on.

 

[Audie]

You're wrong.

Rats. You put everyone else's posts into three words. Two?