Is atheism a threat to humanity?

[Audie]

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?

I saw that for the USA. You can look it up faster than I can
post about it.

 

[Revoltingest]

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?!

Btw, your question is a good one.
I'm not at all bothered by it.

That needed to be said.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

Speaking only for American prisons, the quoted statistic doesn't seem to be quite correct. In fact, take a look at this chart

Are Prisoners Less Likely To Be Atheists?

 

[Augustus]

“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.’ ”

If you pay attention to NDT talking about history, you actually become less intelligent

Al-Ghazali didn't say maths is the work of the devil, had little to nothing to do with the decline of the Golden Age, and science and philosophy continued in good health long after his death.

A map gives a decent example of some changes that just might have been a little more substantial than a fake quote from a guy single handedly destroying an entire civilisation.

It's strange that these proponents of scholarly expertise and evidence-based rational enquiry don't ever bother to do even rudimentary fact checking when it comes to the history of religion and instead just believe anything that matches their preconceived assumptions.

 

[sayak83]

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, the atheists will say that religious books ARE one of those things created by evil men to misguide the opinions of the masses for their benefit.

 

[epronovost]

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.

I would say it's the opposite. Marx critique of religion is based on the effect of religion and religious power over humans. The theoretical imperative are moral justifications for a pragmatic need to take power away from those organisation and replace them. In other words, they fight and oppressed religious group to remove them from power and destroy their base and justified those actions (or plans) by appealing to a new moral code that calls for both humanism and utilitarianism. Of course at that point it's more of a question of opinion.

 

[Audie]

Well, the atheists will say that religious books ARE one of those things created by evil men to misguide the opinions of the masses for their benefit.

And the all the goddies will always say that all the
atheists are alike?

See if you can find even one who says as you claim.

 

[Audie]

I would say it's the opposite. Marx critique of religion is based on the effect of religion and religious power over humans. The theoretical imperative are moral justifications for a pragmatic need to take power away from those organisation and replace them. In other words, they fight and oppressed religious group to remove them from power and destroy their base and justified those actions (or plans) by appealing to a new moral code that calls for both humanism and utilitarianism. Of course at that point it's more of a question of opinion.

I agree.
For a recent example of such, we have the region
of China known as Tibet. The oppressive medieval
theocracy has been eradicated, and for good reason.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

… 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.

This may be what you were taught, but it's not true. Christians and Jews were second-class citizens with fewer legal rights. The Zoroastrians were persecuted — why do you think so many fled to India and became the Parsis? And the persecution of Hindus is notorious — the Muslim scholar Muhammad al Biruni was shocked by it.

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.

Only monotheists think that their god lays down commands. The rest of us rely on reason. If religious law were necessary for virtue, then the states observing sharia would be the happiest in the world — how many non-Muslims would fancy living in Saudi Arabia or Iran?

I have never made any secret of my disdain for atheists, but I cannot accuse them of immorality. This century there have been a 13 terrorist attacks in London, 10 motivated by Islam. The others were 2 right-wing extremists and a madman, and I don't think they were motivated by atheism.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree.
For a recent example of such, we have the region
of China known as Tibet. The oppressive medieval
theocracy has been eradicated, and for good reason.

Great....now Tibet has an oppressive modern dictatorship.
As they say...out of the frying pan, & into the burning coals.

 

[epronovost]

Great....now Tibet has an oppressive modern dictatorship.
As they say...out of the frying pan, & into the burning coals.

The irony is that the Tibetan government in exile has liberalised tremendously and now not only wish to establish a parlementary system in the region, they also are fine to remain within China in a situation not unlike that of Hong Kong. All in all, without delving much into it, that seems like a reasonnable compromise.

 

[Audie]

T

I have never made any secret of my disdain for atheists, but I cannot accuse them of immorality. This century there have been a 13 terrorist attacks in London, 10 motivated by Islam. The others were 2 right-wing extremists and a madman, and I don't think they were motivated by atheism.

No prob. Could hardly match the disdain we have
for "theists" nor the reasons for it.

ETA not all theists. just most of them

 

[Audie]

The irony is that the Tibetan government in exile has liberalised tremendously and now not only wish to establish a parlementary system in the region, they also are fine to remain within China in a situation not unlike that of Hong Kong. All in all, without delving much into it, that seems like a reasonnable compromise.

I wish that HK could be independent the way Singapore is.

And a for Tibet, I wish them well there.

 

[Audie]

Great....now Tibet has an oppressive modern dictatorship.
As they say...out of the frying pan, & into the burning coals.

Well, whatevs. The topic was removing repressive theoregimes
from power.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, whatevs. The topic was removing repressive theoregimes
from power.

China is less repressive?
You'll find some disagreement on that.

 

[David1967]

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?!

Good questions you raise. And thanks for the history lesson. As to your question as to whether atheism is a threat to humanity? I think that 'tolerance' is the factor to be considered. Is the atheist tolerant of the religious persons views, or are they not as in say Soviet Russia or North Korea today? The same may be said of the religious person. Are they tolerant of the person who shares different views or not?

 

[sun rise]

Since the OP was started by someone who professes Shi'a Islam: Muslims murdered Ali, the "Lion of God". Muslim fought Muslim at the Battle of Karbala. Muslims murdered Muslims and others - Daesh and other terrorists. Muslims are fighting Muslims in Yemen and elsewhere today. Muslims have stated that (Shi'a) Muslims are murtadd (apostates) and thus it is proper to murder them.

For those that know me, I'm far from saying that Islam IS the problem. It's not. Rather people are the problem and that problem is present everywhere. But I'd be stupid not to acknowledge that the problem exists with Muslims as well as with all other groups.

And of course, atheists can do the same (USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia etc).

So I don't care whether or not someone is a theist or an atheist. Rather I care what someone's words and actions are no matter what their professed beliefs or ethical standards are.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Btw, your question is a good one.
I'm not at all bothered by it.

You're a rock. "Keep calm and rock on."

 

[Audie]

China is less repressive?
You'll find some disagreement on that.

Try readin' fer content, ya swab!!!
I didnt say less repressive.

 

[Audie]

Since the OP was started by someone who professes Shi'a Islam: Muslims murdered Ali, the "Lion of God". Muslim fought Muslim at the Battle of Karbala. Muslims murdered Muslims and others - Daesh and other terrorists. Muslims are fighting Muslims in Yemen and elsewhere today. Muslims have stated that (Shi'a) Muslims are murtadd (apostates) and thus it is proper to murder them.

For those that know me, I'm far from saying that Islam IS the problem. It's not. Rather people are the problem and that problem is present everywhere. But I'd be stupid not to acknowledge that the problem exists with Muslims as well as with all other groups.

And of course, atheists can do the same (USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia etc).

So I don't care whether or not someone is a theist or an atheist. Rather I care what someone's words and actions are no matter what their professed beliefs or ethical standards are.

Emphasis on the wrong word.

Make it; not saying Islam is THE problem.

Of course there are other problems.