Forum Index
»
Off-Topic
Question for atheists RE: 9/11
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
OK, I get that this post is a defensive move. But it doesn't make sense. The point is, being atheist didn't prevent Stalin and Pol Pot from killing anybody. So it doesn't make any sense to set atheists on a higher moral plane than people do believe in a god. (Hitler persecuted the church as well as using it for political needs, but if we get into the weeds of history we may never get out, so maybe we can agree to leave him there and focus on the simpler cases of Stalin and Pol Pot.) PP 13:34 here. I never meant to say that atheists were on any sort of higher moral plane. Hell no. That would be a ridiculous statement. What I meant is that atheism is not a good motivating factor for violence or fanaticism of any kind. Nothing major, as far as I know, has ever been done in the name of atheism because atheism is not especially inspiring. Atheists have done some big things and some great things but they haven't done those things because of their lack of belief in gods. One would think that religion and, specifically, fear of hell or other punishment would prevent people from committing atrocities but that hasn't been the case throughout history either. Of course there are immoral atheists who have done bad things but the ones who have managed to commit genocide have had to use motivation other than atheism to get people to support them and that has been fairly complicated. Religion seems to be the easiest way to get crazy fanatics to kill people and often to kill themselves in the process. |
Anonymous
|
Religion is also a good way to motivate people to do great things. Like Martin Luther King, or Mother Theresa.
I will agree that there has historically been a tendency for many devout pacifists tend to retreat into their own worlds rather than to lead movements. Historically they retreated to monasteries, today to their own private worlds, like the guy down the street from me with the anti-war license plate, but he isn't leading any movements. |
Anonymous
Yeah but atheists can be pacifists too. And lots of atheists are very nice people who work hard to help others. Also, Martin Luther King was a very religious man and a great preacher but that is not why people joined the civil rights movement. They were motivated by freedom and equality- not by religion. |
Anonymous
OK, one the one hand you're arguing that religion is a motivating force for bad things. But when religion is used to motivate for good things, you find a way to say it's irrelevant? (And I need to correct you. Lots of people chose MLK's peaceful demonstrations, instead of the more violent movements that existed at the time, precisely because of religion.) |
Anonymous
Oh come on, that's really a stretch. Maybe the PP was right when he or she gave the advice not to bother with deliberately obtuse people. I can't tell if you are missing my points on purpose or if you really don't get it. But I don't think there's any point in trying... |
Anonymous
The same accusation could be leveled at you, and the way you resort to ad hominem attacks, like calling people "deliberately obtuse" or saying "you really don't get it", when you obviously have nothing else to say. You want to argue that Martin Luther King's movement was not religious in character? You really don't remember him praying in various public places, and his followers praying with him? You're so full of it. Clearly you don't want to have a serious discussion. I won't speculate on your intelligence level. |
Anonymous
No. I am trying to be very patient here. I said that the Civil Rights Movement was not motivated by religion. Just as Hitler was not motivated by atheism. Yes, there were religious people in the movement but, guess what? There were a lot of Jewish people and atheists and other non Christian people who joined Martin Luther King (and by the way, he was a spokesperson for the movement but he did not create the movement). I don't even know why we are discussing this. I guess because you are trying to counter the assertion that atrocities are often committed in the name of God but never in the name of atheism or something like that. But there is no argument. It's just the way it is. I'm sure good things happen because of religion too but religion is not a prerequisite for good in this world. That's my point. |
Anonymous
It isn't a defensive move. And I don't think anyone is claiming atheists are on a "higher moral plane" (although I've seen theists claim the opposite quite a bit). The point is what motivates someone to do something. The hijackers were motivated by extremist ideas presented by their religion. Stalin and Pol Pot were not motivated by atheism. Technically, there's no teachings in atheism, therefore nothing that would be telling someone not to do something or to do something. |
Anonymous
Atheism does hold there is no life beyond the material world, so no eternal soul, and therefore no perfect justice. The worst that can happen to a human is death. So mass murderers and vicious dictators make calculated decisions based on the assumption that they are their own highest authority. "No one" telling someone not to/to do something means every human being is his/her own absolute authority. That belief has consequences. |
Anonymous
And what does this come from? Your assumptions/generalizations or an actual set of teachings? If it's from an actual set of teachings that all atheists agree on please cite it (I can tell you now there is no such thing). |
Anonymous
The problem is this: you started a discussion based on one "point" -- that people use religion for bad outcomes only. And then when I point out that MLK used religion for good purposes, you switch the goalposts by saying that it's not the leader who matters, it's the followers. Tricky. But to return to the original line of thought, started by you, yourself, Martin Luther King, a Christian, led many people, including Christians as well as many others, in a campaign that involved much public prayer, to a very good outcome! Switching the goalposts is a sleazy debating tactic, and it falls apart pretty fast. For one thing it's painfully obvious - nobody ever said "The Civil Rights movement was motivated by religion," which you're trying to attribute to me, but I'll deny right now that I ever said that. Be my guest, go back and bestow on all your readers the day and time when I allegedly said that. And stop with the patronizing language ("I'm trying to be very patient here"). It makes you look like a complete jerk. Do you really want to broadcast what a sleazy and useless debator you are? |
Anonymous
Hilariously off-base. Hell, modern Christianity is the clearest example of the sort of dangerous nihilistic egoism you're talking about. Why? Because its ethics are entirely situational. It's not law-based. The Bible is broad enough to permit any behavior. All you need to do is "let Jesus into your heart," and "listen" to him speak to you. Of course, we're not told how we're supposed to distinguish between Jesus talking to us, or our own narcissistic impulses. At least non-theists don't have the beguiling impulse to believe our "gut" is the Son of God. |
Anonymous
What? You should read up on Buddhism...stat! There are spiritual atheists. |
Anonymous
Ok. I give up... you honestly are not getting it and I don't care to explain it to you. I never made the points that you said I made. Period. But I am not going to talk you through it again. I no longer think that you are deliberately obtuse. |
Anonymous
Wrong. This is from the dictionary: a·the·ism? ?[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. That's all. No gods. Beyond that an atheist can believe all kinds of things about eternal souls or ghosts or the afterlife or reincarnation or spiritual consequences or any other damn thing. |