Someone named Joel B left a comment after a post at Volokh that I just find astonishing, despite being a very common position. The post addressed the recent study showing that Americans view atheists very negatively and this is Joel's explanation for why such negativity is justified. It's a long quote, so I'll put it below the fold:
The "prejudice" against athiests is entirely justified. A publicly declared athiest is one who has declared that they are for all intent and purpose not bound by any type of higher law. Thus, there can be no rational purpose except the maximization of personal well-being, in whatever way that individual defines it. There is nothing to order this individual except their own laws and decrees.Now it may be, that many of their laws and decrees are ones that in an ordered society work just fine. The dictum "do what puts me at the least risk for greatest reward" will generally in a society with just laws and penalties work out just fine. But in a society without such foundation the athiest is far more free in a multitude of activities. The athiest is fundamentally unpredictable, he might be a reasonable decent young man one moment, but then the bases by which he calculates may change, an opportunity worth taking may arise and he would do it. If, for example, adultery is not objectively wrong by some higher standard than how can we ever be sure that the athiest would follow a convention as such if he knew he could never be caught. We can't.
The problem is, for athiests, is that 90% of the world knows how they would think, if they were athiests, and they rightly fear someone who would so willingly declare themselves as such.
Leaving aside for now his total ignorance of the various systems of moral reasoning that do not rely upon divine command, it's the last part that I find completely bewildering. Do theists really think that if they were atheists, they would immediately go out and start being barbarians? I would say we have far more to fear from someone who is only prevented from murdering and raping by their belief in God than from any atheist I've ever met.
[Shaking head]
That's pretty pathetic.
But there are some theists who do believe that it's only the wrath of God that keeps them honest.
As a teenager I asked my Dad who is an MD, and served as a missionary in areas urgently in need of medical care, how he would want to live his life if he did not believe in God. Foruntately he didn't say, "I can't imagine not believing in God." He said, "I hope I'd live my life in the same way that I have."
To me that's a form of theism that has much more integrity.
Theists fear a world without God because they fear insignificance and vulnerability. Atheists accept their insignificance and vulnerability. It scares theists that atheists may be right, so they convince themselves that without a God there is no morality. This all works on an instinctive level (see my blog on King Kong at HUNBlog). Atheists accept morality as the best bet against their vulnerability, and insignificance as evidence of free will. Atheists are comforted by their insignificance. Theists would rather battle evil than face insignificance. That's why we have monsters in our mythologies. Atheists are an easy target for theists in this struggle, and the depth of their venom belies the depth of their anxiety.
I love the claim that atheists don't have any higher morals. Personally, I adhere to the concept that governments are filters that allow the best elements of freedom to florish and the worst elements of anarchy to be stopped. That maximizes happiness within the citizenship. Where the government interupts basic freedoms of the people, that government is evil (Hey look, I made a absolutist judgement).
What this poster really means is that since we don't believe that his god is the source of overarching morality we are evil. It doesn't help that at least my moral compass says allow people to have sex, drink, take drugs and question dogma.
I here this "no morality" nonsense frequently. It demonstrates the abdication of conscience that is required by religion. It also explains how intelligent people can believe in what are essentially fairytales: faith does not require stupidity - only weakness.
Don't thiests follow that same thinking? They do what their commanding god tells them to do so they won't be tormented in the afterlife but instead rewarded. As an athiest, I can't argue that I don't follow the same thing. Everything you do in life can affect another person's life, thus, that would risk their retaliation. Laws are put into effect to give us guidance, whether they're from a higher being or generally accepted social behaviors, they help protect us from each other. Follow the rules and you can live your life how you want to.
Ed said:
I can't speak for all theists, but certainly for my boss this is the case. He said one of the primary reasons he is so devout a Christian is because otherwise there would be nothing holding him personally back from acts of utter barbarism. He seems to have no inner moral code, but rather derives it entirely from the Bible.
I get the sense that there are a lot of theists who are much happier living with people whose god commands them to slaughter babies than with atheists who would treat each other with compassion and kindness. In a very literal sense, the motivation (God told me to do it) is much more important than the actual behavior.
It scares theists that atheists may be right...
That's funny, I remember many theists saying something similar: "It scares atheists that theists may be right..." Why should I accept one bit of empty self-justification and reject the other?
Atheists are comforted by their insignificance. Theists would rather battle evil than face insignificance.
And that makes atheists better...how? That statement could be twisted to mean: "Atheists don't have to care about the consequences of their actions because they're so insignificant, and fighting evil is pointless." Is that what you meant to say, hogeb? It certainly sounds like you're saying that fighting evil is a bad thing.
I hate to rain on anyone's parade here, but some of the more vocal atheists I've encountered have gone out of their way to reinforce, rather than debunk, all of the worst stereotypes made of them by theists. I've heard atheists make appallingly ignorant assertions about various religions, needlessly and indiscriminately insult persons of faith of whom they clearly know nothing, cherrypick the worst bits of the Bible while totally ignoring the best, call persons of faith mentally ill, and, in general, exhibit all of the worst thought-patterns and behaviors of fundamentalists of all faiths. Indeed, I've met born-again fundamentalists who have shown more respect and understanding toward other religions than the fundamentalist atheists who loudly boast of their superior "rationality." Even the most hostile Pagans I've met show more respect for Christianity than militant atheists have done.
Some of the fundie-atheists' rhetoric, in fact, has been so stoopid, and so similar to fundie-theist rhetoric, that I've often thought that Christians were posing as atheists, and posting insulting, divisive nonsense, in order to defame atheists and reinforce their own prejudices. My only problem with this hypothesis, is that too few atheists have stood up to deny and disown such ignorant opinions.
Here's a hint for atheists: you don't have to believe in virgin-birth or the Ressurection to understand that "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" makes good practical sense here on Earth.
>>The "prejudice" against athiests is entirely justified. A
>>publicly declared athiest is one who has declared that they are for
>>all intent and purpose not bound by any type of higher law. Thus,
>>there can be no rational purpose except the maximization of
>>personal well-being,
As Ronald Reagan once quipped, "Facts are stubborn things." And, the facts simply are not on the side of the person making this assertion. Just to take one example, prisons. The percentage of atheists in prison relative to the percentage of theists in prison would be higher if atheists were less likley to be constrained. The statistics do not reflect this.
However, inversely, history bears out the fact that those who are theists -- specifically those who think they speak for God -- are more likely to commit atrocities, wage wars and otherwise be uncivil and savage-like.
An atheist (who believes this is all we have) is not going to push the nuclear annihilation button. Whereas, a fervent believer in Jesus, End Times, Rapture, Tribulation, etc. is more likely to bring about mass destruction, if only by self-fulfilling their beliefs.
Here's a hint for atheists: you don't have to believe in virgin-birth or the Ressurection to understand that "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" makes good practical sense here on Earth.
Shouldn't that be directed towards theists? Every atheist I know already knows you don't need stories to justify morality.
>>But there are some theists who do believe that it's only
>>the wrath of God that keeps them honest.
This dovetails nicely with a theory I have about what motivates religionists: namely the need for order and constraints. They fear themselves, specificially what they might be capable of. In order to calm those fears, they do what is necessary to keep from venturing outside their bounds of comfort.
And they project outward onto others in the process. That might also be why conservative religionists seek to use the state to impose their morality on others (e.g. laws on "pornography", sodomy, etc.). By having such laws, they believe they are helping to constrain themselves. In short, use the state to save them from themselves.
Which would be all fine and good, except by doing so, they also constrain others as well. And since we are not all so in need of external constraints (by fear of God, or law, etc.) to be civilized, this one-size-fits-all approach to morality is not only ineffective, it is counter-productive.
Mention that the next time gay rights comes up as a subject. See how many christians exercise the golden rule.
An atheist (who believes this is all we have) is not going to push the nuclear annihilation button. Whereas, a fervent believer in Jesus, End Times, Rapture, Tribulation, etc. is more likely to bring about mass destruction, if only by self-fulfilling their beliefs.
Thanks for proving my point, Michael. First, since no Christian yet has pushed "the nuclear annihilation button" (whatever the hell that is), your assertion of atheist superiority is unproven and empty. Second, your reference to "fervent believer[s] in Jesus, End Times, Rapture, Tribulation, etc." implies (intentionally or not) that all Christians believe in that outrageous stuff, and not in the actual teachings of Jesus, which rather explicitly counsel against indiscriminate killing.
atari24: Non-sequitur. Did I say anything about "stories?"
Ildayo: actually, lots of Christians are pro-gay-rights and pro-tolerance. Have you really not noticed?
I hate to rain on anyone's parade here, but some of the more vocal atheists I've encountered have gone out of their way to reinforce, rather than debunk, all of the worst stereotypes made of them by theists. I've heard atheists make appallingly ignorant assertions about various religions, needlessly and indiscriminately insult persons of faith of whom they clearly know nothing, cherrypick the worst bits of the Bible while totally ignoring the best, call persons of faith mentally ill, and, in general, exhibit all of the worst thought-patterns and behaviors of fundamentalists of all faiths. Indeed, I've met born-again fundamentalists who have shown more respect and understanding toward other religions than the fundamentalist atheists who loudly boast of their superior "rationality." Even the most hostile Pagans I've met show more respect for Christianity than militant atheists have done.
I am of Irish descent, and cannot tell you how many times I have met, or how many relatives I currently have, who completely live the stereotype of drunken, useless bums. I've also met cheap Scots and Jews and Italians who spoke with their hands. Just because someone lives a stereotype does not mean that stereotype applies to all, or even most, of the people who belong to a stereotyped group.
Really, all you have demonstrated is the common human failing of arrogance. Whether you are talking about fundamentalist "Christians" or hard-core athiests, it is not surprising that members of both groups have overestimated their self-importance. Because they have found their "truth," they believe they have the right path for everyone.
Personally, I likely would fall into the athiest camp, except that I refuse to be that certain. There is no way we can know if God exists, at least while we're alive, so there is no way to "prove" anything. That doesn't mean a rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth didn't have anything good to say, but I do doubt the whole divinity argument.
This is officially called "external locus of moral authority" (the theist position - fear of God prevents you from doing crime) and "internal locus of moral authority: (the atheist building a moral code during childhood development, out of childrearing, community standards and evolutionary history). I have written about it several times on my blogs, most recently here.
Turn it around. People like Joel B want something for their god to have done, and so they assign him/her/it the responsibility for providing them with their "morality." It is nothing more than wishful thinking. They want there to be a "god" and so they divine something for it to have done.
The sad fact is that people like Joel B are so insecure in their own intellect that they are unable to fathom the idea that they might not be protected by this "god" of theirs.
Raging Bee wrote:
No rain on my parade, I agree completely. I have as little patience for obnoxious atheists as I do for obnoxious Christians.
I find this bewildering as well, and I actually don't think it's a statement most theists would make. It seems to me that it could only be made by a person who isn't aware of the great disparities in morality between people who believe in god(s). After discovering this, it would behoove such a person to examine exactly what moral principles most religions have in common, and then compare that to the moral codes by which most atheists live. I'd bet the overlap would be startling, especially when we consider the moral rules related to the principles of suffering (aversion to) and reciprocity (equality and freedom).
Profession of belief in God has become a membership card for American society-- it's not about the belief so much as making an implicit statement of belonging to a common group which has a common ground from which their values are drawn-- even if, privately, they all have differing views of exactly what that ground is. At least it has the same name, "God," and therefore atheists are perceived as people who are making a concerted effort to stick out and say "No, I'm not a part of this." Therefore, who knows what perverted morality they might hold dear? Obviously it's not what the rest of us do, so it must be ungrounded and hence arbitrary at best and evil at worst.
--------
Personally, it would be a ray of sunshine in my life if people would actually learn how to spell the word "atheist." Then maybe ten years later we can work out what it means, and sometime after that what morality might have to do with it.
atari24: Non-sequitur. Did I say anything about "stories?"
You said "vigin-birth" and "ressurection", and last time I checked those were stories in the Bible.
I used to read christianforums.com in an attempt to understand the thought processes of "the other side." The innumberable threads discussing whether atheists could really be moral people were frighteningly consistent--a great many people on that forum seem to truly believe that only the Bible stands between them and lives of crime and depravity. A jaw-dropping number of guys swore they'd most likely be serial rapists if not for that threat of eternal hellfire hanging over their heads. It was incomprehensible to them that a nonreligious (and nonbelieving) person could make the greater good the defining rule behind decision making, or that said person would ever elect to do something not in his own best interest simply because it's the transcendentally human Right Thing To Do.
I assume that if any of those folks do lose their faith at some point, they'll be grown-up enough to realize they haven't been given carte blanche to go on a rampage.
Oh yeah--
He's spun that wrong. That's actually a problem for that "90%"....unless he's talking about problems for atheists in terms of PR, in which case he's right on the money.
And lots of them aren't. Look at the subject of gay marriage and tell me who's against it. I can't honestly say I've met an athiest online or off that is (there may be but I just never came across one). But there's plenty of christians against the idea.
It is somewhat important to point out to these people that just because one is an atheist, it doesn't mean we simply dismiss the philosophies of the christianity, judiasm, buddhism or other ancient writings as the ravings of lunatics. There are narratives and lessons to be learned from them.
I intensely dislike calling faiths built around these philosophies as religion because religion is such a loaded term with regards to lack of analysis, perspective and extraneous circumstances. Ed's recent discussion on Slavery and the Bible was an excellent case in point. There were those who would tie themselves in knots attempting to justify it because the book was a cornerstone of their faith, rather than just a guiding principle for it.
I recall I went to dinner with such a family once, and participated in the initial recital of grace before dinner. I even took them up on their offer to go attend church with them. When (much later) it came out that I was an atheist, certain members were aghast to learn that I participated in their prayers with no compunction despite my lack of belief. Their framing question was: How can you participate in something you don't believe in? To which I answered: Since I don't believe in it, there were no repercussions for me to suffer by participating in it, while at the same time I was accomodating them. So I considered it a win-win situation. Little did I realize that by their reasoning, such accomodating flexibility would be far worse than refraining from participating. It is this tortured logic that I fail to understand. They took a greater affront to me passing as one of them by participating in their prayers than if I were to not participate in it at all. Yet, to all ends, my morality in terms of helping the needy and our moral compasses, were virtually indistinguishable.
The truely puzzling fact is that such people can understand that you can live a good life utilizing different paths, but only in as much as those paths involve a higher power. The moment you internalize that higher power as your conscience or your personal morality garnered through experience and research, it suddenly becomes invalid to them. That is something I just cannot understand.
I think Soldats has it right. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, but that doesn't mean there's nothing valuable to be found in it. Indeed, there are many ideas and passages in it that are beatiful, inspiring and true. Like Jefferson, I am generally a great admirer of the ethical system of Jesus.
I have heard comments similar to Joel B's many times. The argument goes "without God to reward or punish you, there's no point in being good, so atheists don't need to be good."
That, of course, means that morals have no value. None. There's no reason to exert yourself to be good unless God is watching. Morals are just boring stupid things that don't do you any good. Without theistic oversight, nobody in their right mind would be moral. What's the point?
Obviously, that is wildly stupid. Morals DO have intrinsic value. Kindness, truthfulness, honesty, respect for others, etc. are worth doing whether God is watching or not. In my opinion, living a moral life is the only way you can be happy in any real sense.
On the question of whether or not an atheist can be moral, the answer must of course be in the negative if we define morality as equivalent to the belief in God, as some theists do. But I agree in the main with Soldats. There are surely many good teachings in the Christian religion, as well as in many other faiths. It would be foolish for an atheist to reject everything about a faith simply because they do not hold to that faith, and there are atheists who have done that. Those atheists make my teeth hurt, as much as the fundamentalist young Earth creationist who insists on trying to "train" me by wild distortions of science (note, not all YEC's are like this). I too semi-regularly attend church since most of my family are Christians and do so, especially near the holidays. I can appreciate a beautiful hymn like anyone else, and the reverend often has good sermons with thoughtful lessons and even some humour. Prayer time can be used for quiet reflection. I don't hide my atheism, but neither do I advertise it. It's just a fact of my existance. I don't believe it makes me a bad person.
The boneheads in any group you care to define will invariably have the biggest mouths. Why should atheists be any different? How many nice, quiet people have you assumed were atheists? How many boneheaded, loudmouthed christians have you pegged as christians and not simply boneheads?
I never much liked being judged by the antics of Madeleine Murray O'Hare. I try very hard not to judge religions on the basis of the actions of their most obnoxious adherents.
The idea that moral systems come from a divinity is simply wrong. It is true that most religious adherents get their morality from religion. However, that has generally not been true throughout history.
The genesis of morals is culture. This is reflected in the etymology of the words; mores vis-a-vis morals, Sitte vis-a-vis Sittlichkeit, etc. I don't believe most "primitive" religions had a very strong moral element. Morals were a given of the society, not a religious code. The religion was a means to try to control the vagaries of an unpredictable world, not the vagaries of human behavior.
If you take a look at the moral codes of various religions, there is a good bit of contrary "moral" instruction. There is also a good bit in common. The part that is in common is, in general, the stuff that is required to have a functioning society. The rest of it (eating fish on Friday, cooking your beef in milk, not eating pork, prohibitions against homosexuality) are pure reflections of culture.
Societies can, and have, existed that did not follow these codes. Societies that allowed indiscriminate murder or theft, have not (or at least did not last long, if they did).
So, we wind up with a problem when religious adherents take the stuff that is purely cultural (abhorrence of homosexuality, frex) and elevate it to Morality by virtue of being mentioned in their religious books. We really ought to be separating the cultural elements of morality from the religious. To the extent we don't do that, we leave ourselves open to religious conflict, at least until one side can "cleanse" America off all immorality, be it pork eating or homosexuality.
Oh my gosh, it's almost like they're operating in a capitalist system! Shame on you atheists for persuing rational self-interest, shame!
"that by their reasoning, such accomodating flexibility would be far worse than refraining from participating. It is this tortured logic that I fail to understand. They took a greater affront to me passing as one of them by participating in their prayers than if I were to not participate in it at all. Yet, to all ends, my morality in terms of helping the needy and our moral compasses, were virtually indistinguishable."
Soldats, as a Christian, while I very much appreciate and respect your intention to show courtesy, I have an idea about what may have affronted them.
It is very possible that these people, like many Christians, have a moral code that identifies two kinds of lying: by commission and by omission. By your omitting to say that you are an atheist, they were led by your behavior into believing something other than the truth. Then, apparently, they were more upset to discover that you are (by their moral code) a liar (on that one occasion at least), than upset to discover that you are an atheist.
What to you was courtesy, to them was likely dishonesty. In other words, your moral codes may have been further apart than you imagined.
Or, I suppose, you might have made a special case for Christians, while you might possibly in other circumstances act by the same moral standards of honesty/lying that these Christians apparently had. For example, suppose for a moment that you are not gay, not a computer systems administrator, married, and not a parent. (Of course, for all I know, any or all of these assumptions may be inaccurate, but for a moment, please, suppose.). Then you might think it dishonest to go to a gay bar and behave in such a way that others believe you to be gay though you don't state you are, or to attend a conference of computer systems administrators and behave in such a way that others believe you to be such an administrator though you don't state you are, or attend a meeting of Parents Without Partners and act in such a way that others believe that you are a single parent though you don't state that you are. Likely in all these cases, when the truth is known your explanation that you were "accommodating them" probably won't help much, and may even be seen as an insult.
I understand that you may see these examples as very different from your behavior in the situation you mention. But I'm suggesting that many Christians won't see a difference, especially as people (not just Christians) may be even more sensitive to such interactions in their own homes than in bars or in meetings. Even if they didn't phrase it that way, they very possibly felt that you lied to them.
I've long felt the majority of atheists figured this out long ago. I also find them more accepting of people as a whole. They seem to have a better feel for the human condition. Of course that has been my experience and it is subjective and I am not an atheist.
First- why should any religion be shown respect? A collection of superstitous beliefs is no more worthy of respect than say witchcraft and spells.
Second- A weak atheist(essentially agnostic) says no evidence exists. Their claim IS more rational. I am a theist and I fully recognize the fact my position is irrationally based. It is simply not rational to buy into most religious claims. Seperating that aspect of the discussion from the philosophical claims of how to live a good life is different.
Aren't those that use only the good while ignoring/explaining away the worst doing the same thing? How is it wrong to point out the fact that the bible may not be what fundies say it is? Should everyone with a different point of view just shut-up?
Leaving aside the origination of adultery as a property crime the action is not objectively wrong because the bible says so. The culture of the time is simply recorded into the bible. If thats why one doesn't commit adultery your morality is in the toilet anyway. You don't commit adultery not because you may get caught. But rather so you don't hurt another person. Or people. Those people include yourself.
BTW some statistics show adultery rates as high as 60-80% of all marriages so I doubt it matters if your a theist or atheist in the end. Basic biology apparently is very tempting.:-)
I don't think this is a plausible argument. The man didn't lie. I've never found lie by omission reliable. It presumes someone entitled to all information and that just isn't so. His actions simply didn't require them any form of knowledge for his inclusion. He harmed no one.
They were simply offended, I think, at the manner he essentially trivialized their superstitous practice. He said he didn't believe in it.
That's the golden rule, and it's been around a lot longer than Jesus (who did put it nicely). At bare minimum Socrates and Confucius said it centuries before Jesus was born, but i'd assume it's been around before even humans. It is fundamental to any ethics system.
"The man didn't lie. I've never found lie by omission reliable. It presumes someone entitled to all information."
Chance, by your moral code, then, if I understand you correctly, he didn't lie. That doesn't change the fact that according to a different moral code, one common to many Christians and to many non-Christians I have known, he could be seen as having lied. Yes, by later informing them that he is an atheist, he was saying he "didn't believe in it." But I was commenting on Soldats' statement that the Christians "took a greater affront to me passing as one of them . . . ."
It's very important for Christians to understand about moral codes that are not based on religion. When advising future elementary-school teachers at the community (two-year)college where I worked for many years, I always urged those who were going on to the local Baptist college to first take one of our introductory philosophy courses called "Ethics," so they could learn about non-religion based ethical systems.
But it's also important for atheists to know something of Christian moral codes as well. After all, it's in support of moral codes and in a love of learning and respect for knowledge that we can, and must try to come together. "Lying by Omission" doesn't mean the listener is entitled to all information, but only to information that would correct a mistaken implication likely to be drawn from what is explicitly said. You might yourself feel deceived if you hired a workman who told you he had been repairing roofs for 20 years, and could, in fact, give you five recent positive references, if you found later that workman had failed to mention that all the references are his cousins and that he was currently being sued by several people for poor quality workmanship. Or of course, you might believe that he had done nothing wrong, and that all the fault lay with yourself for not asking exactly the right questions.
Soldats was, in my opinion, making a gallant and useful effort to create a win-win situation. I was offering a piece of information that might help him be more successful the next time he tries. And I hope he does try.
(Yes, I'm using the male pronoun without knowing whether it's correct. It's just easier than he/she.)
I think it has a great deal to do with the concept of original sin. People who accept that we are born bad (maybe evil, but that might be too strong a word for most) could "reasonably" conclude that we will stay bad until the one thing that can save us happens: we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior.
Evangelicals are told to come out and "save" us. I don't think they are being poetic or metaphorical about it either. They really think that's what they are doing. The world is an evil place, people are born sinners and they will die sinners unless they accept the word of God. Or words... loud, loud words screamed in a sweaty fit on a street corner, if necessary.
Of course atheists are evil immoral swine! They've not only heard the Word, but they've flat out rejected it. Sometimes mockingly (gasp!). What could possibly be a clearer indication that these people are wholly beyond redemption?
Especially when you consider the fringe evangelical churches. Demons exist and they possess people on a regular, even daily, basis. The world is nothing but sin and temptation and you must reject and abhor it if you are to protect your immortal soul from everlasting torment. What possible conclusion could these people come to but that atheists must be the lowest form of life on the planet? Even Muslims are just good, god-fearing people. Good, god fearing people deceived by Satan, but god-fearing nonetheless.
Clearly, this is an extreme version, and of course I've caricatured it somewhat for my own entertainment, but I think there are a lot of hardcore evangelicals out there who aren't all that far from this. Actually, I know there are.
Raging Bee pretty much wrote:
LOL =D It just sounds so much funnier to me this way.
Sorry to be so gosh-darn obnoxious and divisive. Just couldn't help myself. I guess its cuz I just ain't got no morals.
Bee, this reminds me of the last time I heard you ranting about the terribly rude atheists. Only then you also threw in a rather lame bit about how they "have nothing to offer." That was a nice touch. Can I borrow that too?
"Blacks just don't have anything to offer".
You know, for all your ranting about how rude atheists are and about how they don't understand the golden rule... Gee I don't know... maybe you could take a page from your own book?
I referred to militant atheists who "cherrypick the worst bits of the Bible while totally ignoring the best," and Chance responded thusly:
Aren't those that use only the good while ignoring/explaining away the worst doing the same thing?
No, they are not. Those who cherrypick the worst bits of the Bible have -- in my experience at least -- done so for the purpose of discrediting Christianity and denying that it has anything good to offer, ignoring the possibility that not all Christians even care about those bits; while those who cherrypick the good bits do so for the purpose of finding bits of wisdom that can improve their lives and spiritual condition, and of appealing to the good sides of their fellow Christians, to motivate them to do good as well.
I have seen a real difference between these two forms of cherrypicking in terms of intent, honesty, and spirit. Your mileage may vary, of course, but this is what I've seen: the former increases hatred, the latter leads to good.
First- why should any religion be shown respect?
For the same reason your lack of religion should be shown respect: your beliefs are not totally evil, you may have good personal reasons for them, you have a right to them, and respect and humility lead to good and mature behavior. If you want respect, then you'd better be prepared to give it as well. And if that's too much for you, get help. (Important note: "respect" does not necessarily mean "agreement.")
A collection of superstitous beliefs is no more worthy of respect than say witchcraft and spells.
This statement sums up fundie-atheist bigotry quite neatly, thankyouverymuch: all "superstitious beliefs" are considered the same, equally undeserving of respect, by people who show no sign even of knowing what, specifically, those beliefs are. (And what do you know of witchcraft and spells?)
What about the "superstitious belief" that we all have "certain inalienable rights?" What about the "superstitious belief" that you even have a right to breathe? Where did that come from? Can you prove it scientifically? And what makes my belief in a Gods-given purpose more "superstitious" than an atheist's belief in no such purpose?
If you can't -- or won't -- acknowledge the moral and practical difference between, say, "black cats cause bad luck" and "God sez thou shalt not kill," then you're really not in a position to judge whose beliefs should get respect, or to demand it from others.
One of my major complaints against fundie-atheists is that they belittle the value of other people's "superstitious beliefs," but have no superior wisdom of their own to offer. Even when I was an atheistic Marxist technocrat, it was perfectly obvious to me that most of Man's greatest moral, spiritual and life-enhancing insights came from religious beliefs, and that -- so far at least -- no prominent atheist has been able to match those insights. All of which makes their relentless mocking of "superstitious beliefs" sound rather insecure.
Some morality and religion (or morality versus religion) numbers.
Exhibit A: Studies: Atheists Supply less than One Percent of Prison Populations
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/apocalypzo.htm#PRISON
Exhibit B:
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf
Leni: I know that you know that you are deliberately misrepresenting my statements. Go back and try again. You know as well as I do that I have explicitly qualified my generalizations -- "the more vocal atheists I've encountered," "fudie atheists," etc. -- and admitted that "your mileage may vary;" which is more than some of the religion-bashers I've dealt with can say.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean that we're perfectly free to criticize other people's religions beliefs, assertions and behavior. They also mean we're perfectly free to criticize atheists' beliefs, assertions and behavior as well.
Raging Bee-
Not to belabor a pointless discussion but:
I've never seen that approach. I have seen attempts to discredit Christianity for several very good reasons but never to deny it has anything good to offer.
Thats the whole point people pick and choose what they care about.
Thats just absurd. Most of the people who attempt to discredit a portion of a religion do so BECAUSE the belief is often fueling intolerance and bigotry. By pointing out absurdities in their own book of choice it reduces the chance of an irrational argument being posed.
Ahh I see. I would always respect your right to hold a belief. Your correct I have mine as well. BUT this does not mean my beliefs are immune from ridicule or rational examination. They get no priveleged status just because they are mine. I can respect you as a person and find your beliefs absurd. You after all are comprised of more than just religious ideas.
Perhaps you missed the paragraph above where I said I was a theist and specifically said the following:
'I've long felt the majority of atheists figured this out long ago. I also find them more accepting of people as a whole. They seem to have a better feel for the human condition. Of course that has been my experience and it is subjective and I am not an atheist.'
and then:
'A weak atheist(essentially agnostic) says no evidence exists. Their claim IS more rational. I am a theist and I fully recognize the fact my position is irrationally based. It is simply not rational to buy into most religious claims. Seperating that aspect of the discussion from the philosophical claims of how to live a good life is different'
That is patently silly. Maybe the most ridiculous paragraph i've read on the internet today. I don't have a right to breathe. I have a biological need to breathe.
If you can't see thinking 'black cats cause bad luck' and 'God says thou shalt not kill' require the same type of mindset to accept then your not capable of understanding what people of differing viewpoints are saying. There is not even one consistent version of God. You have yours, I have mine, Fred has his. Some people think fairies live under trees. It's all superstition.
What objective method are you using to discern what superstitions are correct and which are not? How do you know 'black cats don't cause bad luck?'
If your talking about the philosophical framework of a religion then you have a point. If your talking about the barebones facts involved in what you said above. Your wrong.
I would disagree with this. I would say all walks and aspects of thought have contributed to that ever evolving thing called morality. It's also not belittling a belief to state the fact that it is superstitous in nature.
You are confusing the superstitious beliefs of religion with the philosophical framework they provide. Doesn't change the fact that many are based on superstition. You seem rather angry that religions are superstitions, which in and itself seems insecure.
Such as? Is 'thou shalt not kill' a religious insight? No way that could ever have developed minus religion.:-) What use would a non-theist have for that?
Religion has many great insights but also plenty of irrational thought baggage.It has many aspects that are far from life enhancing and one could argue are life diminishing. It functions as a group codifier and has value but that doesn't change the superstitous nature of many beliefs. In short it's like the people who create it, a combination of good and bad.
Are you saying no one who isn't a theist has ever presented any useful moral ideas. Thats a pretty broad stroke and seems to impale a HUGE swathe of humanity throughout history.
Have a nice evening.
That explains a lot.
"The athiest is fundamentally unpredictable"
This is what really scares theists. It's the fear of the alien, viscerally felt. If a person doesn't share my outlook on something as foundational as a belief in God, then they might believe . . . my God, they could believe anything! The potential atrocities are limited only by the theist's imagination, which, unfortunately, is no limit at all.
Personally, I am much more afraid of a theist than an atheist. It may be that I am an atheist. Regardless, I can never see myself killing another person absent self defense. On the other hand, how many people have been killed in the name of God?
Posted by: Julia [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 4, 2006 06:58 PM
Thank you for your insight Julia, it is definitely a possibility that could have compounded matters. To put the experience into context, I was doing volunteer work and was paired with this particular family as my host at the venue repeatedly. The topic of my religion never came up and I would have considered it rude on my part to refuse to participate in saying grace or turn them down when invited to visit their church with them. I should also restate that it wasn't all of them that had such a reaction. The matriarch of the family was extremely understanding, and dare I say amused, and I gather she had words with her kids such that they did not bring it up again. Yet it made me uncomfortable enough that I haven't volunteered in that region since I don't wish to have the awkwardness of them finding out I requested not to be hosted there anymore.
Returning to Raging Bee's questioning whether a recognition of insignificance leads to a lack of concern over the consequences of behavior, of course not, in fact it requires greater diligence in the application of morality in order to impose meaning into a meaningless existence. To borrow a phrase from Christian philosophy, the insignificance of "accidental properties" of nature does not dissallow the meaningfulness of free will.
Also, whether I am arguing that fighting evil is a bad thing, what? I'm implying that a fundamentalist of any religion would rather tolerate evil as a natural force than to relegate the definition of evil to moral philosophies.
I respect religious people quite deeply. Whenever I rant about the evils of religion it is directed only at fundamentalists. Generalizing any arguments towards all Christians would be as preposterous as stereotyping all atheists as immoral. I really appreciate your comments, too. This has been fun.
Such as? Is 'thou shalt not kill' a religious insight? No way that could ever have developed minus religion.:-)
Sure, it could have -- at least in theory. But did it happen that way in practice? It sounds kind of unconvincing to accept and depend on someone else's work, then say after the fact "I could have done that without your help!" As opposed to "Thanks for your help, but I can take it from here."
...On the other hand, how many people have been killed in the name of God?
A huge number, I'm sure. I'm also sure that a huge number of people have been helped in some significant way by people acting in the name of their respective Gods. Including people opposing war in the name of their Gods. I know feeding the hungry doesn't hog the headlines like a good war, but that doesn't make it less significant.
Raging Bee wrote:
I'm sorry. It wasn't my intention to misrepresent your statements. It was merely my intention to mock them =D
Ohhhh. So your point was merely that "Some people are assholes, and some assholes are atheists".
Well. Job well done then! I don't think anyone would have figured that one out without your intrepid parade ruining.
Especially since we're posting in a thread about, you know, stupid stereotypes.
And that would be relevant why? Did I accidentally threaten to muzzle you again? Did I call you a heretic and, whoopsie! threaten to kill you? Gee. I'm sorry.
I keep doing that. It must be because I don't have any morals.
Personally, I think that religion is humanity's attempt to come to grips with the fact that while humans are capable of great love, compassion, selflessness and inspiring works of art, the usual result of two or three humans gathering together is a bloody awful mess. Literally.
So what a second are you saying the thought that one shouldn't kill another came solely from religion? and the jewish one at that?
So essentially for 1000's of years before your religion of choice people didn't think it wrong to kill one another? It seems to me that religion borrowed an idea already in existence, it didn't appear out of thin air. Giving religion credit for creating the concept seems a little naive considering successful societies existed long before any of the more modern religions and their philosophies.
It should also be briefly noted that the notion of 'though shalt not kill' is somewhat arbitrary. We kill for a variety of reasons and under a variety of circumstances, some even socially acceptable.
Whenever I rant about the evils of religion it is directed only at fundamentalists.
Excellent! But a little more clarity in your words would be greatly appreciated by people of all beliefs who share your hatred of fundamentalist drivel. After all, what's the point of ranting if your readers aren't clear about who you're pissed at?
I don't think that you can really be moral if you are not at least somewhat religious (you can't be an atheist). How can an atheist be considered moral? To them, there is no right and wrong--or if there is, then what meaning does it have? If you're an atheist, why does right and wrong matter and as long as you protect yourself and ensure your own survival what does it matter if you cause harm to others? Its like with animals, they are trying to survive at any cost and don't even have the mental capacity to consider the concept of God so morality doesn't exist to them.
g-man wrote:
Thank you for adding that totally pointless and offensive perspective to the discussion. I suspect, however, that you have little cause for questioning anyone else's mental capacity.
I would like to respond to G-man's comment. I belive that moral is something that can be developed not only through a religious belief but also from various experiences and interactions with other in life. Religion does indeed help an individual lay the foundation of his/her moral. In my Educational psychology class about moral developkment, we are taught that "moral is personal/universal standard or value about right/wrong."
In regard to his comment on atheist, I disagree with his opinion. Atheists just don't belive in a particular god, hell, etc. It doesn't mean that they have no moral. They can be spiritual people. Anyway, I just don't think that non-atheists have the right to say "they don't have moral."
Yes, religioul belief has helped me shape my moral however I know for a fact that there are other things that influenced me in the process of building my moral. Hope people will be able to expand their horizon and be acceptable to different aspects in life.
I remember when reading about this study that there was a consistent discern between the values of Americans versus those of other industrialized nations (namely those in Europe).
In any case, when morality - an abstract idea that psychologists commonly consider a set of behaviors/beliefs - is tied to spirituality, it tends to muddy the concept of morality.
For much of the world's humans, a religious institution is used to provide a comfortable way for them to live through every day and deal with life's confusions and troubles.
There are a variety of commonalities among the Abrahamic religions (which are the most common to America and Europe) that tend to relate to similar belief schemas that would then create similar behaviors (morality). In this group are religious beliefs to restrict harm done unto others, how to consider one's mortality, and what to conceive about a creator/architect of this existence.
When these belief schemas are written in prose and considered the thoughts of a deity, a system of morality can be derived from them with mental ease ("intellectual shorcuts") because one feels reassured that their set of beliefs/behaviors are delivered by an all-knowing source, rather than from a human experience.
There are also plenty of humans that have the intellectual capacity to interpret their experiences without a separate group's criteria. Often, to these people, it feels more meaningful to follow one's own intuitive choice rather than one laid out by an old system of law.
This limits the trust they can hold with a religious institution if the morality that it offers refers to the utilitarian concerns from generations ago.
Even though the Roman Catholic Church just accepted Galileo's research in the early 1990s, many believers overlooked this scientific ignorance because the greater system of thought provided by the church was more meaningful to everyday life than explicit scientific understanding commonly is. I cannot imagine that evolution will be viewed to be as dangerous as it is today; religions just need time to fit their beliefs into the evolutionary theory.
This is not to say that atheists disband from the religious masses because they cannot understand the stories written in religious texts or the sermons delivered by religous leaders; they just gather a stronger concept of morality from their own conscious inference instead of one that is offered to the masses.
I can't find the speaker of this quote on a quick search, so I'll leave this currently famous and influential American Christian Minister/Dean's name in the dark (until I find the a link...). I think this sums up much of the above, "There will always be more sheep than shepherds". If the shepherds wield a source of morality, the sheep will need to follow it to graze peacefully.
"The "prejudice" against athiests is entirely justified. A publicly declared athiest is one who has declared that they are for all intent and purpose not bound by any type of higher law...There is nothing to order this individual except their own laws and decrees."
Atheists are not atheists in order to be immoral.
Atheists are atheists because
there is no way to conclude that there is higher law,
no way to conclude that there is a higher legislature to require it,
no way to conclude that there isno authority beyond this natural world to order or punish.
Atheists are atheists because there is not good reason to accept a god or gods as real, in his/her/its/their natural world, and no way to reasnably prove that there even is a supernatural existence.
And, yes it is harder to then agree as people what our morals should be, but fortunately most people, whether or not they believe in God/gods, agree that we should treat each other decently, as we would want to be treated.
But we have good examples of this problem and the natural solution it. We make he decision to value freedom of speech rather than authoritarian rules by censors, even though more difficult to apply. We (for some people are forced to) accept the well reasoned and overwhelmingly scientifically supported conclusion that all living things, animals and plants, evolve over time, even though the mythic seven days of creation from the bible makes a good story. Reality is reality.
One more thing.
There is no morality without groups of people. This is not an individual matter for one person to decide by his/herself, anymore than unkowable supernatural being(s) can or should decide it for US.
I also believe that there is no morality without diffferent groups of people. i think my saying certain people are not moral because of there beliefs is being prejudice and stereotypical. i believe everyone has morality in some type of way, but everyone has it somewhat no matter if its different from someone else's.