Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

[1robin]

On what evidence of history do you base this claim. Are you merely stating that since Stalin was an atheist and x number of people were killed by the State it is logical to conclude that atheism killed x number of people.

And which religion provides a foundation of objective morality, how does it provide for objective morality and what is the answer for those other religions that stand in contradiction to that religion which provides a foundation for objective morality? While you ponder that I'll go look at the Episcopalian Churches consecrating homosexual bishops while radical Protestants in Africa are trying to legislate physical punishment against homosexuals.

The fact that two groups disagree over what the objective standard is has nothing to do with whether it exists. As long as humans are in the equation we will screw up even the simplest directions. I would submit Christianity, but since you will waste a lot of time trying to get me to prove it is the correct one, then I will say which ever one is true that also has a supreme diety that issues moral requirements. Stalin was chosen primarily for his ant-religous views because of their importance established by Marx. His actions can be shown to be justified by Atheism but that is not necessary. I only need to show that they are consistent with Atheism and inconsistent with the major religions. Everyone checks his moral compass before taking these drastic actions.In other words his Atheism allowed him to do things that at least the Abrahamic religons would not have allowed. A religous belief that contains "Thou shall not murder" kind of puts a damper on such things. I am still willing to deal with his motivation but I am out of time, I will take it up tomorrow if you desire. Have a good afternoon.

As I can't boil water recipes are out of the question. Sorry.

 

[Sunstone]

The fact that two groups disagree over what the objective standard is has nothing to do with whether it exists. As long as humans are in the equation we will screw up even the simplest directions. I would submit Christianity, but since you will waste a lot of time trying to get me to prove it is the correct one, then I will say which ever one is true that also has a supreme diety that issues moral requirements. Stalin was chosen primarily for his ant-religous views because of their importance established by Marx. His actions can be shown to be justified by Atheism but that is not necessary. I only need to show that they are consistent with Atheism and inconsistent with the major religions. Everyone checks his moral compass before taking these drastic actions.In other words his Atheism allowed him to do things that at least the Abrahamic religons would not have allowed. A religous belief that contains "Thou shall not murder" kind of puts a damper on such things. I am still willing to deal with his motivation but I am out of time, I will take it up tomorrow if you desire. Have a good afternoon.

As I can't boil water recipes are out of the question. Sorry.

A person who lacks morality is not called an atheist. They are called a psychopath.

 

[1robin]

A person who lacks morality is not called an atheist. They are called a psychopath.

I thought I already addressed this. I do not claim that Atheists are not generally moral. I said that their is no objective standard that can be justified by Atheism. Things like Good, Evil, value of life have no objective meaning in Atheism. Atheists can justify personal or subjective morals but that is insuffecient for the needs of society and Mother Theresa's would be no more valid than Ghengis Kahn's.

 

[Sunstone]

I thought I already addressed. I do not claim that Atheists are not generally moral. I said that their is no objective standard that can be justified by Atheism. Things like Good, Evil, value of life have no objective meaning in Atheism. Atheists can justify personal or subjective morals but that is insuffecient for the needs of society and Mother Theresa's would be no more valid than Ghengis Kahn's.

The notion that you have an objective basis for you morals appears to me to be a delusion in so far as you must not only take your god's existence on faith, but also take on faith that the values you profess are derived from your god are indeed derived from your god.

You seem to be playing fast and lose with the notion of objectivity. The tree outside my window is objectively real. If I run into it, I smash my nose. If you run into it, you smash your nose. But if someone breaks one of your morals, what objectively happens to them?

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought I already addressed this. I do not claim that Atheists are not generally moral. I said that their is no objective standard that can be justified by Atheism. Things like Good, Evil, value of life have no objective meaning in Atheism. Atheists can justify personal or subjective morals but that is insuffecient for the needs of society and Mother Theresa's would be no more valid than Ghengis Kahn's.

It works this way:
An atheist does as he pleases (according to his nature) without justification.
A believer does as he pleases (according to his nature), & adjusts his scripture to justify it.

 

[1robin]

The notion that you have an objective basis for you morals appears to me to be a delusion in so far as you must not only take your god's existence on faith, but also take on faith that the values you profess are derived from your god are indeed derived from your god.

You seem to be playing fast and lose with the notion of objectivity. The tree outside my window is objectively real. If I run into it, I smash my nose. If you run into it, you smash your nose. But if someone breaks one of your morals, what objectively happens to them?

These are very reasonable points. I am suggesting that objective morals values as given by the bible are true if given God. I am simply stateing what is true if we adopt a certain position vs the opposing position. The discussion to establish God is a very long and different one and not the topic here. Since the thread assumes religion then I did.

Your tree example is a good illustration but not equivevalent. The tree is a material reality. Objective morals are a conditional abstract concept. They rely on mind. If God's mind is real then Objective morals exist if not then they do not. As far as consequence is concerned. The reality of an objective truth does not mandate the acceptance of that truth. It does not even mandate a punishment if violated unless stated in revelation. In this case the consequences if not suffered in this life are dealt with at the judgement. That gives a Christian the hope for ultimate justice, the atheist can only shrug and say Oh well.

 

[1robin]

It works this way:
An atheist does as he pleases (according to his nature) without justification.
A believer does as he pleases (according to his nature), & adjusts his scripture to justify it.

Man It's really frustrating when people re-interpret other peoples motives without access to them. It reveals desperation and an almost intellectual liberality bordering on dishonesty. At least in my case they aren't even close.

After further review you may have a point in a generic sense that would apply to a visable minority but not to any great extent in my experience. Most Christians are simple, humble, and sincere.

 

[Sunstone]

These are very reasonable points. I am suggesting that objective morals values as given by the bible are true if given God. I am simply stateing what is true if we adopt a certain position vs the opposing position. The discussion to establish God is a very long and different one and not the topic here. Since the thread assumes religion then I did.

Your tree example is a good illustration but not equivevalent. The tree is a material reality. Objective morals are a conditional abstract concept. They rely on mind. If God's mind is real then Objective morals exist if not then they do not. As far as consequence is concerned. The reality of an objective truth does not mandate the acceptance of that truth. It does not even mandate a punishment if violated unless stated in revelation. In this case the consequences if not suffered in this life are dealt with at the judgement. That gives a Christian the hope for ultimate justice, the atheist can only shrug and say Oh well.

It seems to me that we can provide no objective basis on which to decide whether or not someone's morals are objective. I do not see how that pragmatically differs from simply saying there is no objective basis for morality.

 

[1robin]

If anyone wants more information about Objective morals and religion/atheism. Here is more than you can stand.

Without God, What Grounds Right and Wrong?
I think all points of view are addressed but don't know they are.

 

[1robin]

It seems to me that we can provide no objective basis on which to decide whether or not someone's morals are objective. I do not see how that pragmatically differs from simply saying there is no objective basis for morality.

Well establishing a system as absolute and universally authoritative is problematic but a seperate subject. I do not think God plans or expects us to. He is interested in what the individual chooses. I was offering what the implications are concerning their mere existance seperate from their incorporation. In the meantime an individual person can accept that Christianity justifies objective morality and try to live a moral life in accordance with that. Or a persona can adopt the position of the Atheist and surrender any transcendental meaning for life, no justification for human worth, no objective standard to appeal to in order to demand justice, or any way to justify the ultimate purpose of anything, etc...... The choice seems simple to me but it obviously isn't to many.

 

[Me Myself]

Well establishing a system as absolute and universally authoritative is problematic but a seperate subject. I do not think God plans or expects us to. He is interested in what the individual chooses. I was offering what the implications are concerning their mere existance seperate from their incorporation. In the meantime an individual person can accept that Christianity justifies objective morality and try to live a moral life in accordance with that. Or a persona can adopt the position of the Atheist and surrender any transcendental meaning for life, no justification for human worth, no objective standard to appeal to in order to demand justice, or any way to justify the ultimate purpose of anything, etc...... The choice seems simple to me but it obviously isn't to many.

So let´s grab any morality as long as we can pretend it´s the best? some of what you say really saddens me. Like:

Or a persona can adopt the position of the Atheist and surrender any transcendental meaning for life, no justification for human worth

Why on EARTH do you need to "justify " it? Can´t you feel it?

Do you really need christianity to tell you are worth something? you need christianity to tell you your loved ones are worth something? truly?

I feel there is something infinetely wrong with that.

You cannot "justify" your value. You cna either feel it, or not, and if you need to "justify" it to feel it, you probably have a very weak basis for your own worth

On tghe other hand. Vikings had pretty "objective" terms of morality too. That doesn´t mean we should prefer viking morality. They thought raping and killing each other was okay (actually, only when you killed one of your own town and didn´t do it in a public way or tried to hide it it was wrong. If you killed him outright with people watching and pay what the elders determined that the person´s life was "worth" to their families (this means a quantity of money) then you did nothing wrong. )

The fact that religious people can decide what is "objective" morality and then justify it by things that have no evidence (like they did with slavery because it was in the bible that slavery is okay) is definetely one of the reasons why some religious people can be disgustingly stupid, barbaric and act with evil.

They are too bussy "justifying" their actions for them to simply feel that what they are doing is wrong. And they wont hear anyone else´s say on it because what they believe is "objectively" true, even when it is obviously not.

 

[Chisti]

So let´s grab any morality as long as we can pretend it´s the best? some of what you say really saddens me. Like:



Why on EARTH do you need to "justify " it? Can´t you feel it?

Do you really need christianity to tell you are worth something? you need christianity to tell you your loved ones are worth something? truly?

I feel there is something infinetely wrong with that.

You cannot "justify" your value. You cna either feel it, or not, and if you need to "justify" it to feel it, you probably have a very weak basis for your own worth

On tghe other hand. Vikings had pretty "objective" terms of morality too. That doesn´t mean we should prefer viking morality. They thought raping and killing each other was okay (actually, only when you killed one of your own town and didn´t do it in a public way or tried to hide it it was wrong. If you killed him outright with people watching and pay what the elders determined that the person´s life was "worth" to their families (this means a quantity of money) then you did nothing wrong. )

The fact that religious people can decide what is "objective" morality and then justify it by things that have no evidence (like they did with slavery because it was in the bible that slavery is okay) is definetely one of the reasons why some religious people can be disgustingly stupid, barbaric and act with evil.

They are too bussy "justifying" their actions for them to simply feel that what they are doing is wrong. And they wont hear anyone else´s say on it because what they believe is "objectively" true, even when it is obviously not.

Game, set, and match.

 

[johnhanks]

I was just being a little sarcastic when I said people believe that religion is the "root of all evil". Of course, most people don't believe that. That said, religion isn't the ONLY excuse people will use for acts of evil- there are plenty more they can use.

Possibly, but in the historical perspective religion has always done it best - after all, even killing children can be made virtuous if you convince yourself it's god's will - and once you've established that it's god's will, who can argue with you? No merely secular 'excuse' can carry that degree of potency.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

On tghe other hand. Vikings had pretty "objective" terms of morality too. That doesn´t mean we should prefer viking morality. They thought raping and killing each other was okay (actually, only when you killed one of your own town and didn´t do it in a public way or tried to hide it it was wrong. If you killed him outright with people watching and pay what the elders determined that the person´s life was "worth" to their families (this means a quantity of money) then you did nothing wrong. )

To be clear, 'vikings' were not a faith; that is the word used for those of the Norse faith [and their related nations] who specifically went to war or on exploratory voyages.

There is nothing specific in our lore that stated 'rape was ok'. In fact, there were laws against rape, in most of our Northern European societies pre-Christian-invasion. Going so far as execution for rape of a virgin. Reports of Norse invaders raping, with their pillaging, is church propaganda.
The Nature of Ásatrú: An Overview of the Ideals and Philosophy of the ... - Mark Puryear - Google Books
Page 53

[edit]Although, let's be real: in war, there are men, regardless of faith who rape women if given the chance. I'm sure we had that. It was a barbaric world. Christians did it too, no big shock. We [mankind] all did it; it's not a religion thing.

Although your summation of weregeld [the blood price] was pretty accurate.

You may be thinking of the occasional buggery viking conquerors practiced on some of their foes. Male on male rape, was a form of power exchange. And no, we don't do it today. At least, speaking personally.

 

[Road Warrior]

Possibly, but in the historical perspective religion has always done it best - after all, even killing children can be made virtuous if you convince yourself it's god's will - and once you've established that it's god's will, who can argue with you? No merely secular 'excuse' can carry that degree of potency.

The key is that people, just as they often do nowadays, dodge accountability by placing the responsibility to something greater than themselves and of which they have no control.

Yes, religion is one. Nation/state/tribe is another. Look at the genocides of the 20th Century in Western Europe, China or, most recently, the Balkans. Those were more about nationalism or racism than religious crusades.

The veneer of civilization on Mankind is a very thin one. Man doesn't need much excuse to kill his fellow man. Using common social bonds such as religion or political affiliation is a convenient means to justify barbaric acts. This doesn't mean that religion or political connection are bad. Just further proof some people can pervert anything they like to own ends.

Look at the actions of self-labeled "Anarchists" in Occupy Oakland. Just cause or simply an excuse for a 20 year old to act like a 2 year old and break things or set fires?

 

[BruceDLimber]

>Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

More than whom?

LOTS of people are stupid, barbaric, and evil!

And I see no real reason to single out those who are religious.

Bruce

 

[1robin]

So let´s grab any morality as long as we can pretend it´s the best? some of what you say really saddens me. Like:

Since deciding which religion is the correct one for humanity is a completely different issue I have not addressed this here. For the individual it is simple, and I have pointed that out.

Why on EARTH do you need to "justify " it? Can´t you feel it?

Yeah that's a good way to establish truth. If anyone "feels" anything it is true. Some people feel like helping their neiboors some people feel like eating them. In Atheism they are both valid. For a group of people who are always asserting the superiority of their logic this is pathetic.

Do you really need christianity to tell you are worth something? you need christianity to tell you your loved ones are worth something? truly?

I meant objective worth. While your system may allow for the worth of individuals in your group. It is incapable of establishing objective value for something you don't personally value. Since that is necessary Atheism doesn't work.

I feel there is something infinetely wrong with that.

With what? I guess you pretty much operate by feelings on all issues. What profound wisdom.

You cannot "justify" your value. You cna either feel it, or not, and if you need to "justify" it to feel it, you probably have a very weak basis for your own worth

I can justify my value through Christianity in about 30 seconds. It can't be done in Atheism in 30 lifetimes. This feel it crap is rediculous. So if anybody feels anything it is a justifiable principle. When you get a ticket do you tell the officer you felt like speeding so it's ok. This is nuts. I usually get argumants far more suffesticated than this.

On tghe other hand. Vikings had pretty "objective" terms of morality too. That doesn´t mean we should prefer viking morality. They thought raping and killing each other was okay (actually, only when you killed one of your own town and didn´t do it in a public way or tried to hide it it was wrong. If you killed him outright with people watching and pay what the elders determined that the person´s life was "worth" to their families (this means a quantity of money) then you did nothing wrong. )

The behavior you are describing is exactly what non-theistic evolution would produce. A heard mentality. Atheism is even worse. Your claim that their values were objective is completely wrong.

The fact that religious people can decide what is "objective" morality and then justify it by things that have no evidence (like they did with slavery because it was in the bible that slavery is okay) is definetely one of the reasons why some religious people can be disgustingly stupid, barbaric and act with evil.

I am glad you are displaying the superior equanimity and civility you suggest atheism produces. Between the two of us you have displayed more barbarity, intolerance, and rank incompetence, and then have the nerve to assign those characteristics to the other person who has not done so. Atheism on parade. Find me one scripture that uses the words that slavery is good. You should understand the bible if you are going to comment on it.

They are too bussy "justifying" their actions for them to simply feel that what they are doing is wrong. And they wont hear anyone else´s say on it because what they believe is "objectively" true, even when it is obviously not.

Even if that were true which it isn't, at the very least we have a way of accounting for the concept of evil. You seem to think the most morally ambivolent system than can be imagined and is apparently based on whatever you are feeling at the moment, is somehow superior to the system that supplies the most rock solid reason for morals. Truly a case of bias over reason. I am astonished that someone would use something as frivolous as feelings to try desperately to give Atheism a capability it doesn't have. Only an atheist can produce a thread using insults against religous people to suggest religous people are evil. Simply astonishing.

 

[1robin]

Game, set, and match.

I love how someone can make the dumbest argument of all time and declare victory. I also like how atheists in particular can recieve a hundred justifications for faith, find an abiguity in a part of one (imagined or real), ignore the other 99 and declare victory. The words case closed, or victory must mean something else where you live.

 

[1robin]

Possibly, but in the historical perspective religion has always done it best - after all, even killing children can be made virtuous if you convince yourself it's god's will - and once you've established that it's god's will, who can argue with you? No merely secular 'excuse' can carry that degree of potency.

This is insupportable. I however concede that religion has had way too much violence in it. Atheist regimes have killed vastly more than religions have. Atleast in a religous context some can actually be called evil and it have an objective value. Apparently (as I have been told by one in this thread) the Atheists values come from whatever he happens to be feeling at the moment. Right, wrong, morality have no ultimate context at all.

 

[johnhanks]

The key is that people, just as they often do nowadays, dodge accountability by placing the responsibility to something greater than themselves and of which they have no control.

Yes, religion is one...

Yes, atrocities are often justified by appeals to a higher cause. But my point all along has been that acting as the ultimate higher cause has been one of religion's raisons d'etre.

This is insupportable. I however concede that religion has had way too much violence in it. Atheist regimes have killed vastly more than religions have.

Given that "atheist regimes" have existed only in the past 100 years or so, this is a dubious assertion. For most of history, over most of the world, religion and state have been coterminous. Experiments to separate the two are historically recent.

Atleast in a religous context some can actually be called evil and it have an objective value.

Again this is no more than religion doing what it's good at - in this case, labelling certain people / populations as being outside normal moral strictures, and thus fair game. Has it ever occurred to you how convenient it was for the OT Israelites that the Amalekites, Midianites, Jerichoites etc. all turned out to be irredeemably evil and thus fit for righteous (and profitable) extermination?

Apparently (as I have been told by one in this thread) the Atheists values come from whatever he happens to be feeling at the moment. Right, wrong, morality have no ultimate context at all.

I must have missed the post where you were told that. Are you sure he/she used those exact words? I'd be surprised.