Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

Oh, I never said they were mainstream atheists. That's something else entirely. That's a specific subset of all atheists. Just like mainstream theists are a subset of all theists, and a typically non-violent one at that.

Aldeth, that's the rule all societies commonly use. That's the rule of language. That's what a definition is. You don't have to define "people", because Webster, Oxford, and about 10M other dictionaries have already done so.

What would be cumbersome and lacking practical utility is your system of re-defining a term on a whim, without justification, and without informing others in the conversation. When you said:

you re-defined atheism from a belief about the supernatural to a belief about the supernatural coupled with a non-violent perspective. You did it with no purpose other than to further your arguement (even though, now, the group your talking about isn't even the group the arguement was about). You did it without warning. There's a logical falacy related to that, about a sort of bait-and-switch tactic using terminology, but I don't remember what it's called.

Ok, you've really lost me there. I in no way suggested that all atheists were violent. In fact, the whole point of that post was to show how atheism had no conceptual connection of any kind with violence, how violence is not a part of deciding whether or not someone is an atheist.

As for re-defining all violent people as something other than Atheist or Christian, you're also re-defining all Atheists and Christians. If society as a whole decided that that was the new definition of Atheism, then that'd be ok, but it's not really useful here.

Now, if you want to distinguish between violent theists/atheists and non-violent theists/atheists, then that's fine, but just add the tags 'violent' or 'non-violent' in front of them, don't try re-defining standardized terms.

 

Standardized by who? By naming someone as violent, you are then declaring that non-violent is the norm. Or should be. Hence, no need to seperate the non-violents, since they are already part of the fold.

 

NOG, I wasn't defining anything. That's why I'm so confused by your comments. I merely asserted that I do not think that the violent people pplr encountered on that website are representative of atheists as a whole. I never stated that atheists, per the definition of the word, were non-violent. (Remember that this was stated in response to pplr's assertion that you either have to say both theists and atheists are responsible for the artocities committed or neither are.) I'm not going to cut and paste from a series of posts, but the general gist of what I have said is that not all atheists and theists are the same, and so a very general statement that you have to accept all or none is not an accurate interpretation of what is happening. And I further went on to say that the vast majority of atrocities had nothing to do with a person's particular philosophy as it concerned theism or atheism.

I mean, look at where you quoted me - I did not say what you are saying I said - or at the very least you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

 

True, that's because there is no athiestic teachings ... at all. None. Zip. Zilch.

Most religions do have lessons against violence and hate and we can all see where that has led over the past few millenia. Teaching against violence and hate doesn't work when bias exists -- violence and hate are personal things (although they can be institutionalized). If hate exists in religious and nonreligious people it is because they (the individuals) allow it to exist -- it has nothing to do with what a person may or may not believe in.

 

Usually, society as a whole. And yes, the act of distinguising a subset from the larger group does generally present a bias of that subset as the oddity, it doesn't strictly communicate that (and I blame modern rhetoric for it). Simply saying that there are violent atheists, and specifically talking about those who are violent, doesn't really suggest anything about atheists as a whole, except that there are some among their numbers who are violent.

Then we have had a confusion, both between you and I and (I think) between you and pplr.

I took your statement to mean that the violent ones weren't real atheists, that they couldn't be, because atheists aren't violent. I see now that's not what you actually said.

At the same time, I think pplr's assertion was entirely valid, and obviously so. We have shown that members of both groups (atheists and theists) have commited attrocities. We have shown that both beliefs have been used (at least as an excuse) to justify those attrocities. I think we all recognize that those individuals were not representative of the wholes of either group. With all that recognized, any fair standard has to be applied equally to both groups, so either both whole groups are responsable for the attrocities committed by a few of their members, or neither whole group is responsable for the attrocities committed by a few of it's members. To disagree with that, to say it's a false dichotomy, means you think you can fairly blame one group for what only a few of it's members did, but also fairly not blame the other for what only a few of it's members did. Since I know you're more rational than that, I'm guessing you must have taken the statement to mean something else entirely, and disagreed with that.

Ok, bad use of word. You're right, Atheism doesn't teach anything. But neither does Christianity. Atheists (those of them that spread atheism at least) teach the precept of atheism, just as Christians (those that spread Christianity at least) teach the collected precepts of Christianity.

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg here -- there are no precepts of atheism. There is nothing to teach. In fact, atheism could be partially defined as the absence of any religious teachings. That does not mean I do not teach my children values or ethics, far from it. I just teach them they should do something because it's the right thing to do, not because they won't get to heaven if they don't.

 

The reasons why atheists think atrocities committed by atheist ideologies can't be attributed to atheism, are basically summarized in the following points:
1) Atheism isn't a centralized, organized movement. There is no unifying leadership, no universally agreed doctrine, no weekly gathering, and no collection plate.
2) Atheism doesn't persuade people to do inhumane acts motivated by faith-based punishment or reward.
3) Atrocities committed by atheists aren't done in the name of a god.

There are many more points, and even these are contested by the theists here.

Now, I'm trying to look at things from a theistic perspective. You guys say to all these points: "It matters not. Atrocities were committed by atheists, and the facts are what they are."
In principal, you've got a point. The arguments are mainly criticisms of the nature of theistic behaviour, as opposed to atheism. From your perspective, these circumstances hold no relevance to the committed acts themselves (although a court would find such information relevant and admissable: it explains the planning, motive, and execution of a crime). Perhaps it's the same as proving God's existance by quoting scripture; atheist observations are seen as equally biased.

As long as you don't try to conclude that atheism is organized in any (unrealistic) way, then I can't say for certain that you are right or wrong. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Question: Would both atheists and theists agree that an agnostic could serve as an impartial arbitrator in such a disagreement?

 

Here's a fundamental problem: atrocities are committed by people, not ideologies.

 

One thing that strikes me, from my atheist perspective, is that religious institutions of present day seem to be tailor-made to suit the agendas of ruthless powermongers. They have gradually evolved into this form over history. I'm of the opinion that they are too far from spirituality nowadays, to make any realistic claim of piousness or divinity.

Exactly what I was trying to explain. This principle goes both ways, and is valid for theists too. Religion is an ideology of sorts, and when people commit atrocities under ANY ideology, irrespective of circumstances, the people should not be exonerated from the responsibility. I still can't say I fully ascribe to this reasoning, but it definitely puts a new perspective on things. Now I'm no longer sure, whether any religion can be held responsible for atrocities. Where is the line drawn for personal responsibility?
Sorry for being so longwinded...

I just had a talk with my catholic girlfriend about our wishes, were we ever to get married. Being tolerant about a catholic wedding is a small sacrifice, but I'm still having problems with the thought that my money (to pay for a wedding) would go to a harmful institution, to further its goals. It seems I'll have to be tolerant at a whole new level, so this discussion is helpful.

 

I'm in the same boat as you. I don't need a Christian god to moderate my wedding thank you very much.

 

Meant to get to this earlier, but forgot somehow:

Sorry, my mistake.

Oh, I didn't claim their moral system was a result of atheism. I claimed that 'way of experiencing the world' that you were claiming is atheism is actually the result of it. Nonetheless, atheism is still a belief.

No, T2, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that there is no supernatural. That's what is taught: that there positively, absolutely is no supernatural. Agnosticism is the lack of.

Many of the religious attrocities weren't sanctioned by their leaders, and most of those that were were commited and sanctioned hundreds of years ago by dead people. If atheism is excused for not officially condoning it's violence (which there is some validity to), theistic religions should be excused for any violence they haven't officially condoned in recent memory.

Neither does theism or most any religion. It is a twisting of the 'teaching' (I'm being more cautious with that word now) of either that results in violence. In the case of theism that's "God wants this (and forget in the Book where he says he doesn't)" while in atheism it's "They're not just decieved, they're stupid and inferior and dangerous, so do X to them". Again, it's specific people twisting their influence over others that does it, and that's just as likely to happen with atheism as it is with theism.

No, they're typically done in the name of No God, sometimes Understanding, or Acceptance, or (worst of all) Tolerance.

This I can accept. There is no Church of Atheism, no Book of Atheism. Atheism is just the belief that there is no supernatural. Anything else anyone else does with atheism is their individual choice.

Not necessarily. I've known agnostics that were completely unreasonable and I've known atheists who were quite reasonable. In fact, I think most of us have come to a conclusion on the general point here.

Does anyone here contend that Atheism is immune to violence, or that Theism is substantially more naturally prone to it?

Yes! That's the way to go! We need to punish the Stalins and Pope Innocent III's (ironic name) of the world, not the atheists and Catholics!

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. There are a few like that, but that's true of most any organization. The protestant Churches of the US, though, really aren't. Even the Catholic Church is far less than it was a few hundred years ago. Religious institutions have adapted to the nature of the peoples they cover. In the middle ages, the people were all parts of monarchies, and the Church emulated that with great success (perhaps too much at times). Today, in the US at least, most churches are far more individual, independant, and even 'democratic', again emulating the systems the people are used to.

I think you need to ask a bigger question than that. Instead ask how much can you attribute crimes of 500+ years ago and a continent away to people of today? How much can you attribute crimes to an organization that changes and moves over time and outlasts any of it's members? That's a far dicier question. Are you going to accuse the current Pope of sanctioning the Inquisition, or do you think he should be held responsable? Sure, the Catholic Church is the same organization, but the man's grandparent's hadn't even been born at the time.

I think what you may have to do is re-consider how you define 'harmful'. The Catholic Church of today isn't the Catholic Church of 500 years ago. Sure, there's some questionable actions around a few priests in the US (though I also wonder what ends up happening to those priests) and the whole opposition to condoms in Africa, but I don't think they've done any mass-murdering recently.

How about a non-existent entity? Do you think he's likey to object?

 

I can understand that and I can even go along with the idea that religion is an ideology of sorts. It argues there is a God and so on (often disagreeing on the particulars depending on the branch). I also want to address you at the same time as I address something Aldeth the Foppish Idiot said. So it'll be at the bottom of the post.

Let me speak to this as a Catholic. Most (probably all) of the money spent goes to the parish. If the local priest/parish is one you find an overall positive force in the world stick with it. If not, go to a different parish (you may not be Catholic but this could work for your girlfriend). I'm one of those Catholics that strongly disagrees with the current official position on gay marriage. I've talked to the priest about it and he was sympathetic, even openly so. This may not work forever as one of the reasons bishops rotate priests is so that none ends up creating a mini-fiefdom. Still, over time some parishes get reputations as being liberal or conservative, for wealthy or poor, and so on. Parishes are made of people and like people, are varied to a degree (even within one organization).

Sorry to belabor the point a bit more. He isn't doing it just for Allah, he is doing it because either he feels it is what Allah wants or is so upset over some that happened that he stopped caring beyond a certain point. One of the terrorists in the taking of a school in Russia (I think) is quoted as saying he knows he is going to hell-meaning he knows he has done bad things against Allah. Of the former (who thinks he is doing it for Allah), he is different in that he has been told/encouraged to think this is what Allah wants by someone(s) he came to trust/believe. Ditto for atheists who may have been doing what they were told because they thought it was rational. I believe there was a rather famous experiment done where people (unknowingly) were tested to see if they would do what an authority figure told them to do even if it resulted in the harm to or the death of another human being. In specific the test subject was told to use electric shocks on an unseen individual that eventually went well beyond what was marked as safe on the machine they were operating.

We all have personal/individual responsibility to a degree, but some people have proven less likely to challenge authority when it does/gives orders for something questionable. I'm not arguing we shouldn't have war crimes tribunals for those who claim to have just followed orders or anything just that the level of individualism is sometimes fussy.

 

Well, a few things I found objectionable about catholicism in the Philippines, where I met my girlfriend:
- The Philippines people are proud to be a puppet state of the USA, which they see as being engaged in holy wars.
- The church promotes ignorance towards any science that contests the religious view. Biology for example has the same standing there as art or philosophy; it's not recognized as a hard science. Not like law, theology or economy
- Atheism is practically unheard of, and only footloose and indecent people admit to it. To quote a taxi driver there:
"Which religion do you practice?"
Me: "I'm not religious."
"Oh. Protestant?"
"No, no religion."
"Ohhh... Muslim?"
"Walang relihiyon!"
"Oh?!?..."
- The church blatantly televises and advertises that you must pay 10% of your income as a church tithe, even before you pay for your bills, or your food! they camouflage this fact in a sea of financial tips, making it indistinguishable from altruistic advice.
- They are against birth control in any form, basically women have no right whatsoever to decide whether something will grow in their body. It was so bad, that at one point it was made illegal to even buy or sell condoms. The only way a woman can avoid having a child is to not have sex, but she's screwed if she gets raped, literally and figuratively.
- A result of the previous points, is that many people are destitute. Families are impoverished due to church fees, forced single mothers are shunned by society, and beggar children litter the streets. The church alleviates their suffering only insomuch as it will improve their image.

The catholic church has a stranglehold on the filipinos, and it's keeping the whole country impoverished and backward. The real warfare of today is economic warfare. You don't see people picking up arms and killing others, but people die all the same. There's just less directness, so less accountability.

 

That is an interesting way of looking at it, granted there is a difference between supporting the USA and being involved in "holy wars". Do you feel the US currently is?

As a Catholic I find that surprising given that the Catholic Church is open to a lot of scientific ideas-including the theory of evolution.

Apparently almost everyone (including non-Catholics) is religious to some degree there. In spite of a lack of understanding did he hold it against you? I've already said I'm against treating people badly simply because of having differences on ideas about religion.

Perhaps, though my parish has more flexibility then that (tend to think of it as part charity part paying the bills when I do-rent and food should go first) and I'm betting they aren't asking people who aren't Catholic to tithe anything.

I'm totally with you on condoms but not abortion (except for actual life of mother reasons). If you want to get into a debate on the latter we can but I would point out there are both religious and secular sources of opposition to it (despite that the first gets most of the news coverage).

Is sad, is there an alternative to single motherhood? As part of being a left wing pro-lifer I agree with the notion women should not be forced into the latter, and should be supported if they end up there. Totally agree about the shunning part and think that should be changed-note it can have social as well as religious aspects to it.

I would blame corruption, poor distribution of wealth, and so on for that. Note many nations (regardless of if the population is majority Catholic or not) have problems with that, this is a socioeconomic system originated problem rather than religiously originated one.

 

We've come to the conclusion at this point, that there is no difference between theistic and atheist institutions. Both demonstrate ruthless leadership, and take advantage of people in their own ways, which can lead to great injustices and atrocities. If we go another step, we can then state that there is no difference between a manipulative church, a corrupt government, or a ruthless multinational corporation.
My criticism is, that catholicism is doing far more harm than good in the Philippines. They are measuring the profits in money, but the product they offer in return ('consideration' in legal terms) is largely faith-based, and its existence is questionable.
Establishing a less corrupt government in the Philippines, which regulates the actions of institutions including the church, perhaps setting some boundaries for what demands a church can make, would be a good first step. The current government is holding on to power, though, as the president seems unwilling to step down. If they don't hold elections soon, many people there fear rioting in the streets.

One thing troubles me: Although we have concluded that it must be the people who are accountable for their actions (leaders for inciting people, and abuse of power, and everyone else for their personal actions), you also say that priests are rotated into different positions and locations. How are we supposed to hold these people accountable for their actions, when it is turned into a game of catch-me-if-you-can?
The only practical solution, is to return to the earlier position of holding the institution in question accountable instead, because it actively protects its members from responsibility and prosecution. This is no new problem, since the churches knee-jerk reaction to their priests being accused of child molestation, is to quickly move the priest out of the immediate area.

I also think you should not see your own parish as free from any responsibility (of what happens outside its area): They operate under the same guiding principles, regardless of whether they are lenient in their demands of the churchgoers. If you lived in an impoverished area, these financial demands would be harmful for the development of your environment. If people make no objections to the scheme of things, no change will occur. If you are a merciful and benevolent believer, you should talk with your local church representative, and voice your objections. Make an appeal to their sense of decency, and ask them to put their money where their mouth is.

 

I would say there is and certainly should be a difference. Also of the 3 the 3rd is the only one officially out to make a money. Institutions can be corrupt but that doesn't mean always are.

Faith-based isn't the same as deceptive. Granted, results can be hard to measure at times and are a mixed bag (good and bad practices IMO) but still honest. Many parishes not only don't make a profit, but may struggle to balance budgets.

I'm betting the bulk amount of the wealth in the economy isn't handled by the Catholic Church. Changing what the Church does isn't going to fix the problem. And more importantly corruption can include misuse of government funds (something the Church isn't in charge of).

About elections, one of the nice things here is that they are scheduled so there is no avoiding them. Though as long as they are held, and honestly so, I'm not going to accuse another nation of not being a democracy.

I don't defend hiding priests that are pedophiles. To be specific about it I was pointing out the moving of priests is considered routine. Please don't mistake the one for the other.

It would not be reasonable to blame my parish for things it had no hand in doing.

And my parish is involved in helping people in trouble. Both locally and internationally. That is a credit to it IMO.

We do. Though please don't assume that either we don't have problems to deal with in terms of taking care of the parish or that our wealth is overwhelming.

Is that guy (in the Youtube video) even Catholic?

And I don't approve of people fleecing their flocks (regardless of if he is or isn't Catholic).

 

Well, I was raised Catholic, was married Catholic, and still belong to a Catholic Church to this day. I agree with a lot of what pplr has already stated: 1) The Roman Catholic Church also does a lot of good in the world 2) Whatever you pay for the wedding is typically a small amount and is going to stay in the local church coffers (if not the church intself, the diocese) 3) By your own admission it isn't reasonable to hold a local church responsible for what happens in a different church, very far away (unless you are actually going to get married in the Philipines - you didn't say one way or the other).

While a lot of what you wrote is a criticism of what is specifically happening in the Philipines, the particular point is not. The RCC is against the use of birth control where ever you go.

I agree with this. Many smaller parishes have even been closed down in recent years (including two of the three Catholic churches in the neighborhood where I grew up), and have been assimilated into another church in a nearby community.

While I cannot know for sure, I would say it is highly unlikely that he is Catholic. While there are many things that one can fairly criticize the Catholic Church for, must priestsdo not sink to the depths of TV Evangelism, which is what it appears this guy has done.

 

Up to this point, they all sound like social problems, not problems with the Church. Now, the Church may be encouraging them, but I seriously doubt the Church is powerful enough to cause them, or to keep them in place if the people wanted change.

In a vastly Catholic neighborhood, this is understandable. And, considering that God promises to provide for those who tithe in the Bible (it's the one thing He asks to be tested on!), it probably is "altruistic" advice, at least from their standpoint.

Yeah, I have serious problem with that, too.

What ministries does the Church have there? Does it provide food or shelter for the poor and single mothers? Does it provide jobs for the jobless? Any connections in the community? If so, they're trying to help. If not, they all deserve to go to Hell (and I mean that litterally, they've rejected their actual Church).

Yes, I think we can all agree on that.

And they should pay for that. One of the most important roles of a Church should be to help those in need in their congregation. That means material help if the need is material. If they aren't doing that, then they're nothing more than hethen leeches.

When you say 'demands', do you mean Power of Law, Power of Faith, or fervent requests? How does the Catholic Church make 'demands' in the Philippines?

I have no problem holding an institution responsable if it is currently aiding and abbetting the people who actually did it. If a priest abuses a child, the people find out, and the Church quickly whisks him off to a nation with no extradition treaty or something, the Church is actively aiding the escape of a fugitive and should be held responsable. You may even make an arguement for conspiracy to commit child abuse, especially if the priest had prior history of it. What I have a problem with is blaming all priests for the actions of one, or blaming a modern organization for what was done centuries ago, which many atheists are all too willling to do.

I don't know about how the Catholic Church works, but us protestant churches are largely individual entities. Even all churches in the Southern Baptist Convention aren't really comparable. If one of them started acting inappropriately, it's not the fault or blame of any of the others. Now, I understand the Catholics are a bit more organized than that, but I'm not sure how much.

The business is the only one officially out to make money, but not the only one officially out to get something. Power is often an even more corruptive lure than money is.

 

To be fair, I may be exaggerating the situation a bit: The church is an integral part of the community there. if the parish funds are redistributed fairly among those who need it, then they may actually be doing some good. But that depends entirely on whether the local priests choose to let the people participate and benefit. Religious doctrine allows priests to easily shut people up with judgements of immorality or blasphemy.

In a way, the church has the potential to be a means to alleviate severe poverty, and I'm sure that this will be happening in some places. I can only hope that people one day learn to be altruistic out of their own accord, instead of under the threat of eternal damnation.

From another perspective, most of the church's charitable actions don't aid people to become more self-sufficient, and just increase the people's dependancy on charity, and the church. So it is largely self-serving 'charity'.

NOG, when atheists recite historic events where religion was involved, the main reason is not to try to assign blame or responsibility to present-day religion, its leaders, or its followers. The most important reason that this is done, is to establish a pattern of behaviour. Historic events are less contested than present ones, and the results are already complete. Looking at past religious wars, persecutions etc., the motivations behind them, and the consequences, present-day wars and other injustices can be put into perspective.

About the argument that is being used, about church diocies being independant entities: This is also a matter of perspective. You choose to look at things from the scale of diocies (did eye spell it write?). Keeping the perspective small protects the higher-ups from responsibility, but it is their doctrines that are the catalysts for most problems. You are switching perspective to suit the argument, but we should strive to be consistant here: Are we holding the religion as a whole responsible, the diocies, or the people and their leaders? If levels of organisation are a hindrance to finding those responsible, then this should be reversed.

 

That may be true for you, and if so I respect you for it, but there are atheists who want the Catholic Church entirely abolished specifically because of the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Actually, it's not so much a matter of perspective as a matter of independance. If the higher-ups institute a policy or teaching that is directly promoting any kind of injustice, they are responsable. If the individual churches take an otherwise innocent doctrine, though (such as homosexuality is a sin) and twist it to an injustice (such as all homosexuals should be dragged into the street and stoned), the individual churches are responsable. That's not a matter of perspective, but of freedom and choice. He who makes the choice should be held responsable.