Atheist morality.

[ArAvalon]

Really, is that why quality of life indicators, education levels and crime rates tend to be lower in many countries with higher amounts of non-believers?

When did I disagree with that? Also, correlation does not imply causation.

 

[Gadarene]

Nice ad hominem attack there, it really says a lot

You might want to learn what an ad hominem actually is. I didn't claim your pomposity meant you were wrong, just that it was risible.

There is already a wealth of information on historical cycles, and numerous examples of the effect of atheism on the masses. What is it you want sources for exactly?

Justification of any kind for your statement on atheism would be a start, not some vague references to Ecclesiastes.

The primary driver of atheism recently has been New Atheism (not the label they actually chose, but for the sake of argument I'll use it here), which promotes a reliance on reason, evidence and argument over faith and superstition.

Given that, why assume one type of person will just flip over to uncritical atheism from uncritical theism? You acknowledge that atheism has indeed brought something new and valuable to the table, and then just assert that actually it's not going to change anything. This is rather contradictory.

I'm not saying such a thing is impossible - there do indeed exist uncritical atheists, but the change in standard makes it far less likely that uncritical theists will just flip to uncritical atheists.

 

[ArAvalon]

@Gadarene: "Special snowflake" is acknowledged as one of the most common ad-hominems, and yes I know what it means. I don't know how I came off as being pompous, sorry.

I base my sources on "John Bagot Glubb - The Fate of Empires" (a relatively short work you can find online) and the works by Will Durant, which are quite numerous, but I could supply citations if you'd like.

I'm not saying such a thing is impossible - there do indeed exist uncritical atheists, but the change in standard makes it far less likely that uncritical theists will just flip to uncritical atheists.

Are you unaware of the masses of militant atheist lies? Do you deny that most New atheists have a warped view of history, such as the Dark Age myth? Even people like Acharya S, whose works are filled to the brim with errors, and who is universally denounced by the best secular thinkers, is hailed as a beacon of light by the masses (all of her books are highly rated on Amazon by the way). New Atheism looks terribly like a religion to me, kinda like the Temple of Reason in the French Revolution. Oh look, they even have their churches too.

Atheist 'Megachurches' Crop Up Around The World

I'll say it again: Lucretius of the Roman Republic, Epicurean Philosophy in Greece, Yangism in China, the Carvakas of India, and so it goes. It is a law of history that the same wealth that announces the zenith of a civilization bring it's decay. Atheism is both a consequence and a cause of both material prosperity and degeneracy.

Also, this article might interest you:
How should one view the "new atheist" literature?

By the way, I have nothing against atheists without ideologies. Ideologies are a curse to humanity (yes, even to the believers).

 

[Hikarifuru]

Sorry are you saying I would point my finger at others. I dont think you know me well enough to being saying that if thats what your inferring. I hope this isn't what you are saying as I havnt pointed the finger at anyone.

I said you would and you did

 

[super animator]

Really, is that why quality of life indicators, education levels and crime rates tend to be lower in many countries with higher amounts of non-believers?

This is relevant, how?

 

[Gadarene]

@Gadarene: "Special snowflake" is acknowledged as one of the most common ad-hominems, and yes I know what it means.

That still doesn't mean it's an ad hom. An ad hom is reference to an irrelevant aspect of someone's personality in order to claim that their argument is wrong. This is not what my remark did.

I don't know how I came off as being pompous, sorry.

I have yet to meet anyone who repeatedly refers to the dissatisfactory standards of "the masses" that didn't think they were somehow above them - or at least hadn't fallen into the same intellectual pitfalls themselves.

I base my sources on "John Bagot Glubb - The Fate of Empires" (a relatively short work you can find online) and the works by Will Durant, which are quite numerous, but I could supply citations if you'd like.

Please do.

Are you unaware of the masses of militant atheist lies?

There's a lot to unpack in that one statement. What constitutes a militant atheist? It is not a label atheists take on themselves. Masses of lies? Name one, unless you meant the Dark Age myth point as an example of that.

Do you deny that most New atheists have a warped view of history, such as the Dark Age myth?

I've already taken issue with the fact that like "militant atheist", "new atheist" is not a label taken on by actual atheists, so there's that. Beyond that, I do not think there is a widespread belief in this myth. It exists to some degree, but I don't think you can really generalise it to a significant proportion of atheists.

Even people like Acharya S, whose works are filled to the brim with errors, and who is universally denounced by the best secular thinkers, is hailed as a beacon of light by the masses (all of her books are highly rated on Amazon by the way).

I've never even heard of her until you mentioned her, but how exactly is she a new atheist? And your standard of someone being hailed as a beacon of light by the masses is...amazon reviews?

New Atheism looks terribly like a religion to me, kinda like the Temple of Reason in the French Revolution.

Except the entire point of New Atheism is not uncritical worship. Again, the ideals you praised new atheism for are ones not rated by actual religions.

So how are they the same thing, when they're fundamentally different?

Thanks for the article link below, by the way - it points out that the French Revolution people who tried to create secular faiths executed a bunch of Catholic priests. Do let us know when new atheism does that, until then, this comparison is just utterly ridiculous.

Oh look, they even have their churches too.

Atheist 'Megachurches' Crop Up Around The World

Most of which are simply about people meeting together and getting a sense of community. I hate to break it to you, but your religion didn't invent that. No religion has any kind of monopoly on that.

I'll say it again: Lucretius of the Roman Republic, Epicurean Philosophy in Greece, Yangism in China, the Carvakas of India, and so it goes. It is a law of history that the same wealth that announces the zenith of a civilization bring it's decay. Atheism is both a consequence and a cause of both material prosperity and degeneracy.

Only because people who have less struggle have more time to think. That is scarcely an indictment of atheism.

Also, this article might interest you:
How should one view the "new atheist" literature?

Not stunningly original or compelling, but might get around to writing a detailed response to it later.

By the way, I have nothing against atheists without ideologies. Ideologies are a curse to humanity (yes, even to the believers).

Agree there.

 

[Hikarifuru]

I think purely scientific atheism has its benefits to society. It has purged old superstitions, and strengthened the will of the truly religious (not the superstitious who account for most of the so-called religious population). Nonetheless, all this while atheism has been in the hands of the intellectual elite, but in the progression of time new atheist movements arise - the secularist pseudo-religious atheism of the masses ("New Atheism" or "Atheism+"). When the masses begin to alter themselves into these forms, they bring along all their undesirable traits as well. The same minds who once thought Jesus rode a T-rex will adapt themselves to atheist myths, such as the Roman invention of Jesus, or worse still, that "it was the aliens who done it". The humorous aspect is they will lay claims of their new so-called enlightenment and point to Christian superstitions, right before immersing themselves in beliefs that have no basis in science or true-religion, and which have long been refuted by the best religious and secular authorities alike. I understand that many atheists are "not like that", but judging from the filth and misinformation on some of the New Atheist haunts, it becomes quite obvious of things to come.

Human history is cyclical, as it says in Ecclesiastes 1:9: "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun." So it is folly to think that we can expect anything different from an atheistic society, judging from its history.

-Śramaṇa saying

I imagine this will soon be the prevailing philosophy of the masses, which isn't necessarily a bad thing for the truly religious minority.

Quoting a verse from the bible as an argument does not display that you ever understood the atheist. Neither does your sloppy predictions of the future.

 

[bhsmte]

When did I disagree with that? Also, correlation does not imply causation.

Sure, you could say that.

I could also say, countries with lower number of believers seem to not have issues with; crime rates, education and quality of life.

If as some Christians believe, not being a Christian has a negative impact on morality, this data would seem to be an argument against that.

 

[bhsmte]

This is relevant, how?

One poster made a comment about the numerous effects of atheists on the masses. I thought I would contribute some data in regards to countries where atheism has larger numbers. That is how I thought it was relevant.

 

[ArAvalon]

That still doesn't mean it's an ad hom. An ad hom is reference to an irrelevant aspect of someone's personality in order to claim that their argument is wrong. This is not what my remark did.

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

Not necessarily to their personality.

Aw, what a special little snowflake you are

It sure came off that way, doesn't really matter anyway.

I have yet to meet anyone who repeatedly refers to the dissatisfactory standards of "the masses" that didn't think they were somehow above them - or at least hadn't fallen into the same intellectual pitfalls themselves.

I was simply couldn't think of a better term to use. Social psychologists have long realized that Herd Mentality exists. Man being an animal, I didn't think it would be a radical thing to say. But, yes, I'm just like everyone else yay.

Please do.

The Story of Civilization, V. 1., 47:
We must not conclude that morals are worthless because they differ according to time and place, and that it would be wise to show our historic learning by at once discarding the moral customs of our group. A little anthropology is a dangerous thing. It is substantially true that— as Anatole France ironically expressed the matter— "morality is the sum of the prejudices of a community"; 87 and that, as Anacharsis put it among the Greeks, if one were to bring together all customs considered sacred by some group, and were then to take away all customs considered immoral by some group, nothing would remain. But this does not prove the worthlessness of morals; it only shows in what varied ways social order has been preserved. Social order is none the less necessary; the game must still have rules in order to be played; men must know what to expect of one another in the ordinary circumstances of life. Hence the unanimity with which the members of a society practice its moral code is quite as important as the contents of that code. Our heroic rejection of the customs and morals of our tribe, upon our adolescent discovery of their relativity, betrays the immaturity of our minds; given another decade and we begin to understand that there may be more wisdom in the moral code of the group— the formulated experience of generations of the race— than can be explained in a college course. Sooner or later the disturbing realization comes to us that even that which we cannot understand may be true. The institutions, conventions, customs and laws that make up the complex structure of a society are the work of a hundred centuries and a billion minds; and one mind must not expect to comprehend them in one lifetime, much less in twenty years. We are warranted in concluding that morals are relative, and indispensable.

The Story of Civilization, V. 1., 55
Few societies have been content to rest their moral codes upon so rankly rational a basis as economic and political utility. For the individual is not endowed by nature with any disposition to subordinate his personal interests to those of the group, or to obey irksome regulations for which there are no visible means of enforcement. To provide, so to speak, an invisible watchman, to strengthen the social impulses against the individualistic by powerful hopes and fears, societies have not invented but made use of, religion.

The Story of Civilization, V. 1., 69
Religion supports morality by two means chiefly: myth and tabu. Myth creates the supernatural creed through which celestial sanctions may be given to forms of conduct socially (or sacerdotally) desirable; heavenly hopes and terrors inspire the individual to put up with restraints placed upon him by his masters and his group. Man is not naturally obedient, gentle, or chaste; and next to that ancient compulsion which finally generates conscience, nothing so quietly and continuously conduces to these uncongenial virtues as the fear of the gods. The institutions of property and marriage rest in some measure upon religious sanctions, and tend to lose their vigor in ages of unbelief. Government itself, which is the most unnatural and necessary of social mechanisms, has usually required the support of piety and the priest, as clever heretics like Napoleon and Mussolini soon discovered; and hence "a tendency to theocracy is incidental to all constitutions."

The Story of Civilization, V. 1., 71:
Hence a certain tension between religion and society marks the higher stages of every civilization. Religion begins by offering magical aid to harassed and bewildered men; it culminates by giving to a people that unity of morals and belief which seems so favorable to statesmanship and art; it ends by fighting suicidally in the lost cause of the past. For as knowledge grows or alters continually, it clashes with mythology and theology, which change with geological leisureliness. Priestly control of arts and letters is then felt as a galling shackle or hateful barrier, and intellectual history takes on the character of a "conflict between science and religion". Institutions which were at first in the hands of the clergy, like law and punishment, education and morals, marriage and divorce, tend to escape from ecclesiastical control, and become secular, perhaps profane. The intellectual classes abandon the ancient theology and—after some hesitation—the moral code allied with it; literature and philosophy become anticlerical. The movement of liberation rises to an exuberant worship of reason, and falls to a paralyzing disillusionment with every dogma and every idea. Conduct, deprived of its religious supports, deteriorates into epicurean chaos; and life itself, shorn of consoling faith, becomes a burden alike to conscious poverty and to weary wealth. In the end a society and its religion tend to fall together, like body and soul, in a harmonious death. Meanwhile among the oppressed another myth arises, gives new form to human hope, new courage to human effort, and after centuries of chaos builds another civilization.

There's a lot to unpack in that one statement. What constitutes a militant atheist? It is not a label atheists take on themselves.

They have called themselves this in the past (League of Militant Atheists), and they still do so today. A simple google search would provide ample evidence of this. There are even groups out there, outright calling themselves "The Militant Atheist" and you claim it is "not a label atheists take on themselves".

Masses of lies? Name one, unless you meant the Dark Age myth point as an example of that.

Sounds like you're either being disingenuous, or don't hang around atheists a lot.
The Dark Age were caused by Christianity, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for believing in the Copernican Model, Galileo was tortured for the same, Jesus was inspired by Horus-Isis-Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, Krishna, etc (Zeitgeist). Jesus was a Roman invention (Atwill), The Vatican was responsible for two worlds wars, or at the least wants to take over the world (The Secret History of the Jesuits by Edmund Paris), The Church rewrote the Bible and Gnostic texts and Infancy gospels were omitted for a diabolical purpose, etc, etc.

Those are just from the top of my head. I have heard the above mentioned way too many times on the internet. It becomes ridiculous when other atheists begin to defend Christianity. The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews "God's Philosophers" | Strange Notions

I've already taken issue with the fact that like "militant atheist", "new atheist" is not a label taken on by actual atheists, so there's that. Beyond that, I do not think there is a widespread belief in this myth. It exists to some degree, but I don't think you can really generalise it to a significant proportion of atheists.

If it wasn't a widespread belief, why do you think it has to be refuted at all? I know you won't take anecdotal evidence, but I've had to macro that article to a picture because I eventually got tired of continually refuting it.

I've never even heard of her until you mentioned her, but how exactly is she a new atheist?

Where did I say she was a "New atheist"?? Maybe you took it from the context, but I was merely alluding to her influence.

And your standard of someone being hailed as a beacon of light by the masses is...amazon reviews?

Not necessarily from Amazon, but it does reflect the bias and misinformation of the people who read her books.

Except the entire point of New Atheism is not uncritical worship. Again, the ideals you praised new atheism for are ones not rated by actual religions.

So how are they the same thing, when they're fundamentally different?

Nor was that the case with the Temple of Reason. That was my point, in trying to distance themselves from the religious they became religious themselves.

Thanks for the article link below, by the way - it points out that the French Revolution people who tried to create secular faiths executed a bunch of Catholic priests. Do let us know when new atheism does that, until then, this comparison is just utterly ridiculous.

That's absurd. The execution of the priests was the indirect consequence of those secular faiths, not the basis of their formation. "You cannot compare the french secular faiths to the modern secular churches, because they haven't murdered any priests yet" - yes, that's pretty much a strawman-argument.

Most of which are simply about people meeting together and getting a sense of community. I hate to break it to you, but your religion didn't invent that. No religion has any kind of monopoly on that.

Nope, but it certainly bears resemblance to the Cult of Reason. But that's a subjective view I guess, maybe you don't see it that way.

Only because people who have less struggle have more time to think. That is scarcely an indictment of atheism.

Almost every society based on secularist atheism has failed in similar ways, but "that is scarcely an indictment of atheism". Okaay..

 

[Gadarene]

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

Not necessarily to their personality. It sure came off that way, doesn't really matter anyway.

And as per the definition you have cited, it wasn't an ad hom.

I was simply couldn't think of a better term to use. Social psychologists have long realized that Herd Mentality exists. Man being an animal, I didn't think it would be a radical thing to say. But, yes, I'm just like everyone else yay.

They have called themselves this in the past (League of Militant Atheists), and they still do so today. A simple google search would provide ample evidence of this. There are even groups out there, outright calling themselves "The Militant Atheist" and you claim it is "not a label atheists take on themselves".

Ok, some have. They are a minority. The League of Militant Atheists no longer exists, and The Militant Atheist appears to be a very small number of people.

We both know that the label is applied far wider than that and very often is applied to people who don't take that label themselves anyway.

Sounds like you're either being disingenuous, or don't hang around atheists a lot.

Not hardly - I'm asking you to justify a statement you made. And I am regularly around atheists - and I still don't especially recognise half of what you're talking about, so you would be well advised to keep justifying claims you make.

The Dark Age were caused by Christianity, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for believing in the Copernican Model, Galileo was tortured for the same, Jesus was inspired by Horus-Isis-Osiris, Dionysus, Mithra, Krishna, etc (Zeitgeist). Jesus was a Roman invention (Atwill), The Vatican was responsible for two worlds wars, or at the least wants to take over the world (The Secret History of the Jesuits by Edmund Paris), The Church rewrote the Bible and Gnostic texts and Infancy gospels were omitted for a diabolical purpose, etc, etc.

Most of the atheists I know do not claim any of these, though I would agree such misconceptions certainly exist among some atheists.

If it wasn't a widespread belief, why do you think it has to be refuted at all? I know you won't take anecdotal evidence, but I've had to macro that article to a picture because I eventually got tired of continually refuting it.

Erm....what? I said it wasn't widespread. I didn't say it didn't exist.

Where did I say she was a "New atheist"?? Maybe you took it from the context, but I was merely alluding to her influence.

You immediately named her after a statement about new atheism.

I shouldn't have assumed it was relevant, apparently.

Not necessarily from Amazon, but it does reflect the bias and misinformation of the people who read her books.

Or alternatively, maybe they're just mistaken.

Or alternatively alternatively, perhaps you are.

People simply liking a book does not indicate much.

Nor was that the case with the Temple of Reason. That was my point, in trying to distance themselves from the religious they became religious themselves.

And I pointed out how new atheism differs and is not a religion.

That's absurd. The execution of the priests was the indirect consequence of those secular faiths, not the basis of their formation. "You cannot compare the french secular faiths to the modern secular churches, because they haven't murdered any priests yet" - yes, that's pretty much a strawman-argument.

I made the point only to emphasise how utterly daft your comparison was - I had already pointed out that atheism does not fundamentally operate in the same way as that particular secular group did.

Almost every society based on secularist atheism has failed in similar ways, but "that is scarcely an indictment of atheism". Okaay..

What were you saying earlier about correlation not being equivalent to causation?

In any case, apparently I missed your claim of atheism correlating with degeneracy. I'm not really too concerned what you consider degeneracy to be - plenty of that going on before atheism became popular.

My point was that it could as easily be due to the material prosperity as it could be due to increased atheism within society.

 

[JGG]

Are you unaware of the masses of militant atheist lies? Do you deny that most New atheists have a warped view of history, such as the Dark Age myth?

Finally! Someone who can answer my question. Could you define what militant atheist and New atheists are? I hear these phrases thrown around a lot but nobody seems clear on what they mean.

 

[stevevw]

Really, is that why quality of life indicators, education levels and crime rates tend to be lower in many countries with higher amounts of non-believers?

Research has shown that people that belong to a religious organizations are more likely to be in a stable relationship, be happier, more charitable and have a better physical, mental and emotional well being.
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis
Are Religious People More Charitable than Non-Believers? | Mostly Rational

 

[Hikarifuru]

ArAvalon,

Concerning atheists having a warped view of history. Are you referring to them denying that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs were on the ark?

 

[ArAvalon]

And as per the definition you have cited, it wasn't an ad hom.

It came off that way to me, per that definition that's what I understood.

We both know that the label is applied far wider than that and very often is applied to people who don't take that label themselves anyway.

Certainly, but a little different from when you initially said "It is not a label atheists take on themselves." But yeah, I agree that not many people apply it to themselves, and that it's frequently used incorrectly.

Mind your manners, kid

Alright, uncle.. Just kidding.

Not hardly - I'm asking you to justify a statement you made. And I am regularly around atheists - and I still don't especially recognise half of what you're talking about, so you would be well advised to keep justifying claims you make.

Which is what I've been doing.

Erm....what? I said it wasn't widespread. I didn't say it didn't exist.

I understand, but my point was it was more common than you imply.

You immediately named her after a statement about new atheism.

I shouldn't have assumed it was relevant, apparently.

She might be relevant to certain atheists, it doesn't necessarily make her one of those.

And I pointed out how new atheism differs and is not a religion.

Religion means different things to different people. Like I said "But that's a subjective view I guess, maybe you don't see it that way."

I made the point only to emphasise how utterly daft your comparison was - I had already pointed out that atheism does not fundamentally operate in the same way as that particular secular group did.

Can you say for certain that is true for all atheists? How is atheism exempt from it, or be "fundamentally" anything?

What were you saying earlier about correlation not being equivalent to causation?

It wasn't correlation, it was clearly the cause.

My point was that it could as easily be due to the material prosperity as it could be due to increased atheism within society.

Both of which are usually intertwined.

 

[bhsmte]

Research has shown that people that belong to a religious organizations are more likely to be in a stable relationship, be happier, more charitable and have a better physical, mental and emotional well being.
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis
Are Religious People More Charitable than Non-Believers? | Mostly Rational

Really? Why do deeply religious Christians get divorced more often than atheists?

Study: atheists get divorced less than deeply religious couples.

What about racism behaviors and Christianity?

Does Christianity Contribute to Racism? - Science and Religion Today

Speaking of compassion:

Religious People Less Driven By Compassion Than Are Atheists And Agnostics, Study Says

And quality of life and crime rates in less religious countries:

Misinformation and facts about secularism and religion | Psychology Today

 

[ArAvalon]

ArAvalon,

Concerning atheists having a warped view of history. Are you referring to them denying that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs were on the ark?

No? I'm a Catholic, not a Creationist, nor am I particularly fond of dinosaurs. And neither did I say "all atheists have a warped view of history", I clearly made the distinction.

 

[ArAvalon]

Finally! Someone who can answer my question. Could you define what militant atheist and New atheists are? I hear these phrases thrown around a lot but nobody seems clear on what they mean.

I imagine there's no general consensus on a fixed definition. Anyhow, I personally agree with this:
New Atheism - RationalWiki

 

[Hikarifuru]

No? I'm a Catholic, not a Creationist, nor am I particularly fond of dinosaurs. And neither did I say "all atheists have a warped view of history", I clearly made the distinction.

You said militant atheists, and those atheists are likely to oppose those two beliefs that christians sometimes assert

 

[bhsmte]

I imagine there's no general consensus on a fixed definition. Anyhow, I personally agree with this:
New Atheism - RationalWiki

On the opposite side of this, would you agree there are some people who could be labled; militant Christians?