Is atheism a threat to humanity?

[dfnj]

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 once tried to argue this point that atheists are a threat to humanity but my argument did not resonant too well with me after I made it. Since I am a theist, and I think people are sacred, I would never participate in building any weapons of mass destruction for fear someday they might actually be used. But someone pointed out to me many weapons of mass destruction are created by people who are theists.

The idea atheists have no morality is similar to the argument atheists make that religion is principle cause of wars and unnecessary violence in the World. I have argued against the atheists this is simply not true. My argument being if religion did not exist at all we would have just as many wars, murders, and unnecessary violence in the World. The problem is not religion but human nature.

Now I will use the same kind of argument but in favor of the atheists. Most people just know the golden rule. It has nothing to do with religion. Also most people have some amount of empathy even though there are psychopaths in society who do not have empathy. But most people have empathy and just know it is best to treat other people well. And most people know either by reading wisdom or experiencing it in their own lives how you treat other people is how you will experience life. If you cause other people suffering you will live a life of suffering. Most people know these principles of morality without participating in any discipline of religion.

So just like there are theists who create weapons of mass destruction with a total disregard to the sacredness of human life, there are atheists who live moral lives based on principles of morality coming from the culture or from experience.

But let's assume you are right. Assume for a moment the atheists are a real threat to humanity. Say the atheists finally organized take out say half the Worlds population using a mostly theist heuristic in determining who gets snuffed. Well, here is my pledge. If humanity gets down under 4 billion I will do my part to rebuild the human population. I will work extra hard to makes sure we restore humanity back to the proper numbers. You don't have thank me. It will be my sacred pleasure and I consider it to be in the service of God.

 

[Father Heathen]

Those who follow blindly are a far greater threat than those who question and think critically.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Dawkins says as much in his book. So did Sam Harris and Hitchens.

 

[blü 2]

Dawkins says as much in his book. So did Sam Harris and Hitchens.

They're all alike in not believing God exists.

One day, when I find out what a real God is, I may catch up with them.

 

[SomeRandom]

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 Atheism is largely a tempering force and even necessary to wrangle in the religious when they go too far. It is the freedom from “accountability” that is their greatest strength. Instead of some elaborate punishment and reward system, the average atheist has to rely on their own conscious and ethical values. Usually that takes the form of some kind of humanist perspective, but there are other philosophical schools one could consider.
Or even just basic human empathy.
Most ancient civilisations had their respective golden period. Many religions can claim their own golden period where philosophy and even science boomed. Usually a time of open cultural exchange.
But we are now in the 21st century and it’s time for a new boom. Irrespective of the religion or lack thereof of the movers and shakers in academia.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The idea atheists have no morality is similar to the argument atheists make that religion is principle cause of wars and unnecessary violence in the World. I have argued against the atheists this is simply not true. My argument being if religion did not exist at all we would have just as many wars, murders, and unnecessary violence in the World. The problem is not religion but human nature.

I don't think they would say it is the principal cause of conflict and wars but a sufficient cause all too often, and one that often enables such - that is my position. And history (and current events) shows this to be true. I would put it down to fixations on fundamental beliefs as being the issue, which of course includes many others - like nationality, cultural differences or such.

 

[danieldemol]

...
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.
...
What do you think?!

I think you have failed to prove that religion comes from an external source, all religion is manmade.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Secularism also allows people to keep their beliefs and places of worship. The only difference is that people aren't given a "special" tax, based on what they believe.

Now, let us return to our main topic, there is a real inherent ethical problem with atheists.

Already you show how you have a false idea of what atheism is. There is nothing "inherent" in atheism - problematic or otherwise, because atheism isn't a "thing".

Theism is the "thing". Theism is the "thing" that comes with doctrines, commandments, dogma's, rituals, etc. Atheism is just the word used for people who aren't theistic. That's it.

There is NOTHING (good OR bad) inherent to atheism, as atheism is simply the rejection / nonbelief of rather specific claims. That's it. No doctrines, no commandments, no worldviews, no rituals, no dogma's,...

Whatever individual atheists DO believe, or engage in, is by definition seperate from their atheism.

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

I have so many objections to this one, it's not even funny.

1. first, there's the point I just made. That atheism isn't a thing. Theism is the thing. Obviously, an atheist won't commit to a religious worldview. However, nothing stops an atheist to commit to a non-theistic worldview which might include "outside source" red lines. Religions have no monopoly on such.

2. Not dealing with "red lines coming from an outside source"... I consider that a GOOD thing. What you mean by "outside source", is actually that things like morals are SUPER IMPOSED upon you. It means that you have no moral compass of your own and instead just obey whatever rules you believe you should be obeying. That ends up in the "befehl ist befehl" nonsense. Moral frameworks that are superimposed and which you have to obbey, aren't moral. It's amoral at best and immoral at worst. If you follow a COMMANDMENT that says "don't steal", then you aren't being moral. Instead, you are just being obedient. But if you don't steal because of actual moral reasoning reasons, THEN you are being moral.
It is "I don't do it because X forbids it" vs "I don't do it because of such and such reasons" where those reasons deal with things like empathy, fairness, justice, politeness, solidarity, respect,... The latter is moral. The first is just obedience.

So they follow their own minds

Which allows for moral development and growth. It's a good thing.

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 you have it completely backwards.
The opposite of what you are claiming is true.

Only a person who's free from super imposed moral frameworks, can actualy BE moral.
A person who just obeys rules that are super imposed from wherever, isn't being moral. That person is just being obedient.


And let's not forget that religious books that outline those "moral rules", were all produced by humans. So eventhough you imply that this "outside source" isn't human, it actually is.

And not just "human", but actually "ancient human", stemming from a time where superstitious and barbarism where the rule rather then the exception. And the "morals" in such scriptures kind of reflect that.

In any case, the way I see it, no super imposed moral framework could result in moral behaviour. The "super imposed" kind of negates that.

Morality has to do with intention and underlying reasons for doing what you are doing. "because X commands it", is not a reason nore an intention. That's just obedience. Blind obedience at times, even

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?!?!

I have met such people also and you know what? I don't believe them for a second!

In fact, I have only seen evidence of the opposite.
I actually have known the Abdeslam brothers before they became islamic terrorists (long time ago - we had mutual friends).

While at times they were... eum... bully-ish, they also had clear boundaries. They were rather fun and friendly guys to hang out with, actually. Then they became fundamentalist muslims and went on a killing spree in Paris.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But my 'red lines' are better defined than many religious people's

Even more important then that, is that your (and my) red lines can shift when we learn new things.
They aren't set in stone. They aren't dogmatic. They aren't to be followed without questioning.

And even more importantly, when one asks "why the red line here and why not there?", you can actually ANSWER that with a reasoned argument, instead of just "Because that's what god commanded" (aka "befehl ist befehl")

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...(Brilliant post)
Morality has to do with intention and underlying reasons for doing what you are doing. "because X commands it", is not a reason nor an intention. That's just obedience. Blind obedience at times, even

What are the sources of X when we don't concentrate on religion per se, but look at in general.
X is something which can't be doubted and thus it is a dogma as here: Something held as an established opinion; especially a definite authoritative tenet. Tenet as a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true.

So the psychology of dogmatic religion is to derive authoritative doctrines from the supernatural. The general psychology is to derive an authoritative doctrine from something, which is supposed to be universal for all humans.

Agree or disagree?

 

[Augustus]

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.

The practical incompatibility is a product of the theoretical compatibility though. So while it is true to say they are concerned about the effect of religion and influence of the church, this is a necessary consequence of the theoretical foundations of Marxism.

The critique of religion is not that they could, in theory be fixed, but based on them existing at all. As they are "objectively" false, and thus is a great evil that prevents humans from achieving their 'salvation'. It's all or nothing, not merely a pragmatic evaluation of religious tenets or organisational influence.

For Marx it's similar to a fundamentalist Muslim rejecting all other 'false' religions. If religions are false, then their traditions and moral codes are based on lies and creators of a false consciousness. When there is 'One True Path' that leads to utopia, anything that takes you away from this is an abomination. ; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being... The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

The role of atheism in Marxism is similar to the role of God in classical monotheism On its own god belief means little, but take it away from the religion and it starts to collapse. As monotheism requires a God, Marxism requires no god: "The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being."

While classical monotheist religions generally understood the impossibility of eradicating 'false' teachings, and the 'perfection' of humanity without divine intervention during the eschaton, Marxism considered this achievable via human endeavour. The eradication of religions and god-beliefs is thus a necessity.

Or

Many weak-kneed communists reason as follows: 'Religion does not prevent my being a communist. I believe both in God and in communism. My faith in God does not hinder me from fighting for the cause of the proletarian revolution.'

This train of thought is radically false. Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature...

Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings.

In practice, no less than in theory, communism is incompatible with religious faith. The tactic of the Communist Party prescribes for the members of the party definite lines of conduct. The moral code of every religion in like manner prescribes for the faithful some definite line of conduct... On the other hand, one who, while calling himself a communist, continues to cling to his religious faith, one who in the name of religious commandments infringes the prescriptions of the party, ceases thereby to be a communist. N.I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky: The ABC of Communism

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.

While the terms humanism (in the sense that it places humans at the apex and is about shaping the world to the human will), and utilitarianism (anything is ok if it serves the 'greater good' i.e The Party/Revolution/Proletariat) can be applied to Marxism, neither applies in the most common ways we use these terms. Marxist-Leninist ethics were very different to Secular Humanist ethics for example and certainly not 'liberal'.

Re religion, it's more than the destruction of their power bases though, it is their total eradication. They cannot exist in the final stage of Communism: "It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept"

Their new moral code called for the extermination of those who stood in the way of History if necessary. This is it was important to reject the religious argument for the sanctity of human life: "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."

"What violence would you not commit to exterminate violence?" (B Brecht)

Of course at that point it's more of a question of opinion.

We agree that there was a significant practical dimension that related to the political power of religions in society, and that people must be offered an alternative to religious belief if they are to be persuaded.

How do you reconcile "Marxist opposition to religion, especially organised religion doesn't derive from a stance on the existence of deities", with doctrinaire Marxism though? It is not a pluralistic ideology. To believe there is a god is to reject doctrinaire Marxism, just like believing there is no God is a rejection of classical monotheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

You say that as if religion isn't a product of human minds as well.

 

[Augustus]

Why do you keep quoting a bunch of totalitarian communists as if they were an authority on atheism?

Try to read things in the actual context they are written please.

I'm sure you wouldn't then ask why I quote Marx as if he was on authority on Marxism, would you?

The only reason that the USSR advocated for atheism is because they wanted the people to worship the state and didn't want competition from religion.

The reason that Marx advocated for atheism was that it was a fundamental principle that underpinned the philosophy of Marxism.

Not sure why so many atheists have a problem with accepting this fact. It doesn't mean that atheism = Marxism or atheism is bad or whatever calumny some people seem to think it implies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What are the sources of X when we don't concentrate on religion per se, but look at in general.
X is something which can't be doubted and thus it is a dogma as here: Something held as an established opinion; especially a definite authoritative tenet. Tenet as a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true.

So the psychology of dogmatic religion is to derive authoritative doctrines from the supernatural. The general psychology is to derive an authoritative doctrine from something, which is supposed to be universal for all humans.

Agree or disagree?

I certainly think that there is a case to be made that most humans intuitively look to others for leadership, while some humans intuitively take up the role of leader.

When you look at people of power / authority, it seems like most of the time, they had sort of a "natural" rise to power. I like to contrast it to learning a skill, like drums. To become a good drummer, it takes hours and hours and hours, over literally decades, of practice. Nobody "gravitates" towards being a good drummer by intuition.

Not so with "leaders". They gravitate towards such positions. The alpha's, if you will.

"followers", I agree, might tend to look towards (perceived) figures of authority and just take over their opinions as if they are fact. Some to a larger extent then others.

I think this kind of psychology is an artefact of our evolutionary history. I also think that in this day and age, when you grow up in a secular democracy, we are conditioned out of such patterns of thinking. Or to an extent, at least. Thinking as an individual is more encouraged today then it used to be.


So yes, to a certain extent, I'll agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... (Good post)


So yes, to a certain extent, I'll agree.

I live in a mostly secular, humanistic and democratic country; Denmark. But universal authoritative claims are still around, they just aren't religious anymore. They usually rely on variations based on reason, logic, derived from science and/or nature, that the Law is the Law and/or group-thinking around "we" versus "them".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I live in a mostly secular, humanistic and democratic country; Denmark. But universal authoritative claims are still around, they just aren't religious anymore. They usually rely on variations based on reason, logic, derived from science and/or nature, that the Law is the Law and/or group-thinking around "we" versus "them".

I think we reached the "extent" to which I'll agree.

The way I see it is that reason, logic and science aren't "authorative claims". They are the exact opposite. If anything, they are a departure of "authorative claims".

In many lectures about science and the scientific enterprise, you'll hear prominent scientists saying things like "there are no authorities in science. at best, there are experts - and experts can be wrong".

This is why science has things like peer review. Because you don't trust the results of your collegues. This is why you test your own ideas as well, because you don't even trust yourself.

"universal authoritative claims", are the exact opposite. In those it's more like: no need for testing, no need for review, no need for further study. You already have your answer. It's the universal claim coming from the authority.

Questioning everything, is at the very heart of science. That isn't compatible with "authorative" thinking by any means.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think we reached the "extent" to which I'll agree.

The way I see it is that reason, logic and science aren't "authorative claims". They are the exact opposite. If anything, they are a departure of "authorative claims".

In many lectures about science and the scientific enterprise, you'll hear prominent scientists saying things like "there are no authorities in science. at best, there are experts - and experts can be wrong".

This is why science has things like peer review. Because you don't trust the results of your collegues. This is why you test your own ideas as well, because you don't even trust yourself.

"universal authoritative claims", are the exact opposite. In those it's more like: no need for testing, no need for review, no need for further study. You already have your answer. It's the universal claim coming from the authority.

Questioning everything, is at the very heart of science. That isn't compatible with "authorative" thinking by any means.

So that everything is physical as physicalism is a fact?

 

[Audie]

Dawkins says as much in his book. So did Sam Harris and Hitchens.

Note what you said...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.

the statement above indicates all, a majority, or typical of.
A blanket statement about atheists.

And you support that with what you think three people seem to
say, unsupported by any quote.

IOW, your claim s garbage.

 

[Audie]

Try to read things in the actual context they are written please.

I'm sure you wouldn't then ask why I quote Marx as if he was on authority on Marxism, would you?



The reason that Marx advocated for atheism was that it was a fundamental principle that underpinned the philosophy of Marxism.

Not sure why so many atheists have a problem with accepting this fact. It doesn't mean that atheism = Marxism or atheism is bad or whatever calumny some people seem to think it implies.

I would accept it if someone cared to demonstrate it.

No biggie. What is a biggie is the persons of evil who
say atheists are without any moral underpinnings
and their invidious message that atrocities are to be
expected from atheists.