Atheists' Marginalization of the Most Important Issue..

[Al-Warraq]

Exactly. One of the benefits of a site like this is that it allows people who might not otherwise meet to share their understanding of the world - even if it completely opposite. I respect your point of view and I'm interested in it. Having said that, i substantially disagree with you!

My main problem with what you say is that it in no way resembles what I see around me. I feel as if you are basing your image of all atheists on the model of Richard Dawkins, who is in fact a very particular and unusual atheist.

In the UK, I know so many people who have slipped gradually from ‘low religion’ to ‘no religion’ very slowly over the course of their lives. Typically they were brought up Christian and (like Muslims in a Muslim country, or Buddhists in a Buddhist country) simply assumed that was the way to go.

Until imperceptibly, without noticing, without even thinking about it much, they ceased to believe. There never was a moment of decision. Even now they might be uncomfortable with being called outright an ‘atheist’. They certainly don’t want to talk about it.

In the vast majority of cases, their moral behaviour hasn’t changed one bit. They have the same principles, the same capacity for altruism or charity that they always had. They also have all the same faults. Even though you may say that without a God underpinning their morality, it should fall apart, that’s not what happens.

They are in fact neither better, nor worse, than they were before.

I have several comments on what you've said. First, you said they leave Buddhism or Christianity or Islam…, as if God's existence is Christianity or Islam or Buddhism. God's existence is another issue that's related to logic above all else.

Those people you talked about, why didn't people do like them in previous centuries? If what happens to them is natural it would have existed in all civilizations. This leads to the fact that atheism is propagandized for. It's not emanating from the human thinking itself, otherwise it would be a wide-spread phenomenon in all religions throughout their history, but history doesn't testify to that. Atheism emerged in the nineteenth century as a product of a supported and propagandized conspiracy, which created the evolution theory at the time of the emergence of atheism to support it.

Second, you say they left religion without noticing, without thinking and without deciding, how can that be? This is an evidence of media brainwashing not an evidence of awareness, because they didn't think, notice nor decide. This didn't happen to other civilizations, they either adhered to their religions or converted to another religion, but they don't say: there is no creator for this universe! If they did people will doubt their mental capabilities.

The collection of all the atheistic theories is what justified for some people to drink this mixture strange from nations and civilizations which is atheism. Especially when they are unempirical and unproven theories that are merely covered with robe of science, and easily believed by those who easily give their trust.

In the vast majority of cases, their moral behaviour hasn’t changed one bit. They have the same principles, the same capacity for altruism or charity that they always had. They also have all the same faults

Now you are complementing religion. You're saying that their moral behavior when they were believers didn't change after they became atheists, atheism should make them more moral not the same as when they were believers. Even though this is improbable when we know atheism's hatred towards morality except when it serves interest.

To be a person with all your ideas utterly changed and yet be as you were, this can't be! This is neither logical nor realistic. Look how the ideas of atheism and materialism turned the world into immorality, with the world wars and the atheists Bolshevik wars which killed millions of people, and we have the west which turned into an insatiable mouth sucking poor peoples' blood, with the support of the materialistic theory which is based on pragmatism and the idea : ends justify the means.

In the 19th century onwards, when God retreated in Europe the claws of the devil came out. The more materialism and atheism spread the more Earth and human destruction spread; because religion is based on morality, and atheism is based on materialistic philosophy which doesn't believe in morality and believes in the survival of the strongest, and we can see this throughout history.

A moral atheist is either in a state of social hypocrisy or he's in a state of detachment from atheism and its cruel principles.

Atheists should realize what atheism is, philosophically not socially. Because the idea is like a rope that gradually pulls who holds it towards it.

In the vast majority of cases, their moral behaviour hasn’t changed one bit. They have the same principles, the same capacity for altruism or charity that they always had. They also have all the same faults. Even though you may say that without a God underpinning their morality, it should fall apart, that’s not what happens.
They are in fact neither better, nor worse, than they were before

Why? Those principles drive them back to their previous religion don't you think? How can they abandon their religion without abandoning its moral and behavioral effects? This is a deficient atheism, and shows how weak atheism is due to its inability to present an alternative.

The atheist at best is a burden on religion, while the devout atheist will dispose of all human values, because his thinking leads to private selfish material interest, and all moral values are there to trim the nails of selfishness. While atheism makes the person a source of moral legislation for it only believes in matter. Therefore atheism is against morality, and certainly not every atheist is a devout atheist which reduces the damage a little.

Atheism is based on the pragmatic materialistic philosophy, which makes the person an enemy to morality because it stands in the way of his interests and desires. Selfishness is against altruism, and atheism leads to selfishness. That's why you should thank the remnants of religion in some altruistic and moral atheists. Nietzsche, Dawkins, Hitchens and Marx aren't unusual atheists, they are its masters and leaders, and they all demean morality and look for alternative to it, and refer it to bourgeoisies and consider it an obstacle in the way of science as Harris and Dawkins say, or in the way of the atheist superman as Nietzsche says.

Who chooses an approach should be aware of what it is, and should be able to show its good qualities and defend it, not accept it without thinking nor deciding, that's for the sake of reason.

 

[Independent]

Who chooses an approach should be aware of what it is, and should be able to show its good qualities and defend it, not accept it without thinking nor deciding, that's for the sake of reason.

Perhaps they ought to. But they don’t.

That's because there are major differences in cultures around the world. If you are brought up in an environment where a particular religion and culture is very strongly instilled (eg Islam) then to leave that religion is a big issue. What’s more, it’s so wrapped up in visible cultural behaviour that your absence of faith will appear to everyone else as a challenge.

In western countries such as the UK that is no longer true. In centuries gone by, being a Christian demanded much more of people and it would be far more obvious if you were a non-believer. To leave the Church was a public act of defiance.

But today, with most people you know, you simply can’t tell whether or not they are religious unless you directly ask them. So for many people in the UK, ceasing to believe in God, heaven and hell is something that can happen quietly and without anybody really noticing.

Religion isn't just about morality. Islam is also a tremendously demanding religion from a lifestyle point of view. It affects the way you eat, the way you dress, the way you think about the arts, and so many other things. I am constantly amazed here to discover how many areas of day-to-day life are regulated, directed and channeled. No wonder why reverts here are constantly asking questions, it's exhausting. To leave Islam is to reconstruct your life in every detail.

Whereas, when you leave certain Christian churches, everything goes on more or less the same as did before. The effort to leave, the breach with your previous life, is minimal. For these reasons it does not require the big decision you think it does.

You may view this a fault of the Christian churches (you probably do) but in this thread we’re talking about faith versus atheism, not Islam versus atheism.

 

[CosmicPathos]

You may view this a fault of the Christian churches (you probably do) but in this thread we’re talking about faith versus atheism, not Islam versus atheism.

Is there any difference in faith in God and faith in morality/golden principle? You reject faith in former and uphold in latter, I see it as hypocrisy.

There is no scientific evidence to prove morality exists or ought to exist. Just because some studies show "moral" phenomenon, it does not mean it ought to exist. There is NO reason for it to exist.

Look at recent US killings. The killer was a child/teenager, so were most of those killed. Morality does not/ought not to exist.

 

[TJ-alcapone]

Is there any difference in faith in God and faith in morality/golden principle? You reject faith in former and uphold in latter, I see it as hypocrisy.[/quote

There is a very much a difference between faith in god and faith in morality. Having faith in god doesn't necessitate having to be moral. I suppose few would argue when I say that you can believe in god and yet be evil. History is mired with men who acknowledged faith in god and yet committed atrocious acts. How is that hypocrisy? You can be good and not believe in god, just as you can be good and believe in god.

There is no scientific evidence to prove morality exists or ought to exist. Just because some studies show "moral" phenomenon, it does not mean it ought to exist. There is NO reason for it to exist.

Science will never give you purpose based answers such as those. Such questions are ludicrous in science. For example if you were to ask, why should there be a moon, science can give you many antecedent answers as to how that moon came to be. But if were to ask why should there be a moon at all, as though it has a purpose, then you are not on the scientific path anymore.

 

[TJ-alcapone]

The current consensus amongst the scientific world is that the answer for the origins of morality lie through the study of evolutionary psychology and neuro-science. I suggest you look into the work of the prominent neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran whose life's work is the field of behavioral neurology. Sam Harris, another prominent neuroscientist can be a good starting point as well. There was remarkable talk given by Frans de Waal a few months back at a TED conference, where he talks about morality in the animal world. Look it up on youtube, I can't post links on this forum yet. Truly eye opening talk. Humans are very anthropocentric in that we think we are the sole purveyors of morality. That is clearly shown to be the case through many different fields of study.

 

[Independent]

Is there any difference in faith in God and faith in morality/golden principle? You reject faith in former and uphold in latter, I see it as hypocrisy.

I most definitely do not have a ‘faith’ in morality, that’s not the right word. On the other hand, I am aware that I have moral standards which restrict and channel my behaviour. Where does this come from?

I can see that my personal morality has large overlaps with religious morality, and it also overlaps with the legal morality, if you can call it that (ie laws that control behaviour). But I don’t totally agree with either.

Part of my morality does indeed come from certain principles – eg do unto others as you would have done unto you. This has a Christian background, but you don’t have to be a Christian to follow it.

I could make some guesses as to why I have these moral standards, but the truth is I don’t really know. Nevertheless that’s how I organise my life. Many others are like me. How is that hypocrisy? What does it matter why a person is moral, if the outcome is the same? Morality can indeed exist independently of religion.

 

[CosmicPathos]

The current consensus amongst the scientific world is that the answer for the origins of morality lie through the study of evolutionary psychology and neuro-science. I suggest you look into the work of the prominent neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran whose life's work is the field of behavioral neurology. Sam Harris, another prominent neuroscientist can be a good starting point as well. There was remarkable talk given by Frans de Waal a few months back at a TED conference, where he talks about morality in the animal world. Look it up on youtube, I can't post links on this forum yet. Truly eye opening talk. Humans are very anthropocentric in that we think we are the sole purveyors of morality. That is clearly shown to be the case through many different fields of study.

I dont need to read them to come to conclusion that morality is necessary. Morality is an undefined concept, neurologically, and genetically. There are no Moral genes such as Mor6, or Moral99.

I reject morality.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Those people you talked about, why didn't people do like them in previous centuries? If what happens to them is natural it would have existed in all civilizations.

Many DID! And they were killed for it. People like this were executed for blasphemy, so does it really surprise you that fewer of them came out and admitted they were atheists? We have had a couple of extremists on this board argue that we should still kill atheists. Same thing with homosexuals. We've always had them, we just see more of it now because we tend to stop those who want to hunt them down and kill them with golden eagles.

Atheism emerged in the nineteenth century as a product of a supported and propagandized conspiracy, which created the evolution theory at the time of the emergence of atheism to support it.

This isn't true either. There is nothing in atheism that makes us support evolution. You can be an atheist and oppose evolution. There are people who believe we were planted here by space aliens, and who point to the ancient pyramids and mysterious ancient "landing strips" etc. Ever read "Chariots of the Gods"?

The collection of all the atheistic theories

What are "atheistic theories"? Atheism is just the lack of belief in Gods.... there are no theories.

Now you are complementing religion. You're saying that their moral behavior when they were believers didn't change after they became atheists, atheism should make them more moral not the same as when they were believers.

Why would it make them more or less moral? The only ways I can think of is that they may abandon obedience based stuff from the religion, like hating on homosexuals and non-members of the relgion, etc. And it may keep some sociopaths in line, but that is obedience not morality. I see no reason why they'd change their moral views. They'd have the same sense of empathy and they'd live in the same culture.

Even though this is improbable when we know atheism's hatred towards morality except when it serves interest.

The atheist at best is a burden on religion, while the devout atheist will dispose of all human values, because his thinking leads to private selfish material interest

You can repeat this hateful allegation over and over and over, and you have. But it still isn't true.

Your apparent inability to see morality as anything other than obedience to power is alarming, so I ask you again:

If your God asked you to kill your family, would you do it?

If your God demanded something of you that you would otherwise say is immoral, would you do it?

Can you conceive of any action you would refuse to do if God demanded it of you?

Is God Good because he stands for what is Good, or is Good Good because its what God demands?

And as asked above, if there was no God, would you truly have no moral sense?

 

[Pygoscelis]

The current consensus amongst the scientific world is that the answer for the origins of morality lie through the study of evolutionary psychology and neuro-science. I suggest you look into the work of the prominent neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran whose life's work is the field of behavioral neurology. Sam Harris, another prominent neuroscientist can be a good starting point as well. There was remarkable talk given by Frans de Waal a few months back at a TED conference, where he talks about morality in the animal world. Look it up on youtube, I can't post links on this forum yet. Truly eye opening talk. Humans are very anthropocentric in that we think we are the sole purveyors of morality. That is clearly shown to be the case through many different fields of study.

Sam Harris never impressed me much. He's more about attacking religion than anything else.

Ramachandran on the other hand has some FASCINATING research. I recommend it to everybody to read up on the experiments he has done. They are very illuminating and you can learn a LOT about human (and non-human) empathy and how it works, and how it can go wrong, etc.

Frans de Waal TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html Interesting stuff.

 

[TJ-alcapone]

Sam Harris never impressed me much. He's more about attacking religion than anything else.

Ramachandran on the other hand has some FASCINATING research. I recommend it to everybody to read up on the experiments he has done. They are very illuminating and you can learn a LOT about human (and non-human) empathy and how it works, and how it can go wrong, etc.

Frans de Waal TED talk: Interesting stuff.

I agree. I just brought up Sam Harris as he might be a familiar name. But in terms of science alone, I don't find his stuff nearly as interesting. Possibly because of his passive way of speaking and lacking descriptions. Ramachandran never fails to capture my imagination. Everything from his talks on phantom limbs, to synesthesia, to mirror neurons. And add to that the fact that he's Indian, I only share more with him philosophically speaking. I am simply enamored by everything about him.

I think the greatest innovations of the 21st century are going to be in the in the fields of biology and medicine. Our understanding of life is still very wanting. So with a more holistic understanding of evolution, pathology, anatomy and genetics, I think we can put this religious anthropocentric view of the world to bed once it for all. If I remember well, even Steve Jobs was quoted in his biography as saying that the biggest innovations of the 21st century would be in biology through the advent of better technology.

 

[Scimitar]