The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[Emperor Devon]

@Emperor Devon--mental illness is entirely unconnected to using religion as an excuse for evil behavior.

 

I believe you are missing my point, which is that the word of God can be used to justify perfectly immoral actions.

[SykoRevan]

This topic of mine has gotten kind of out-of-hand. As SilentScope001 put it, it's a firestorm. This thread was not intended as a debate, merely as a way to discuss views and experiences with Atheists such as myself, not Atheism itself as a belief. I've noticed Achilles and Nancy Allen have been going at it more than anyone, and while I appreciate the viewpoints of both, I think you might have taken my intentions out of context.

[Achilles]

Perhaps the moderators would see fit to break the conversation out into a new thread (?).

 

I can do that--do you and/or Nancy have a preference where to split the thread off? --Jae

 

Might as well keep it in Kavar's Corner.

 

Sorry--I meant at which post number in this thread do you want to make the break. --Jae

 

I would defer to the OP.

[Nancy Allen``]

Avoid using 'deluded' or any other terms describing someone's mental status, please, unless we're talking about mental illness, of course. It's an emotionally charged word and there are far better choices.

 

Which is exactly why I used it as people do use the term no matter how wrong it is. The point is Atheists don't like having their nonbelief attacked and Christians, Jews, ect don't like having their beliefs attacked. It cannot work both ways, you cannot say that you don't like being attacked while attacking others.

 

I can do that--do you and/or Nancy have a preference where to split the thread off? --Jae

 

Uh...wha? Whatever, doesn't bother me.

[Achilles]

Which is exactly why I used it as people do use the term no matter how wrong it is.

The term itself is not "wrong". "Delusion" and its derivatives are actual words that are used to describe actual conditions. If someone was (literally) psychotic, which word would you use to describe that person's mental state? If you're were using it as a slur, that would be one thing, but if the person really is psychotic, then it's something else.

 

The point is Atheists don't like having their nonbelief attacked and Christians, Jews, ect don't like having their beliefs attacked. It cannot work both ways, you cannot say that you don't like being attacked while attacking others.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I will say that you're more than welcome to attempt to poke holes in my philosophies. In fact, I've made several open invitations. If the evidence points somewhere else or if my thinking is flawed, then I can only benefit from such discussions. I'm pretty sure that I won't turn into a pillar of salt if shown to be incorrect

[Jae Onasi]

Perhaps you should encourage them to create LF accounts. We could cut out the middleman and I could debate with them directly

 

I certainly appreciate your pastor's response to this. Unfortunately, I really hoping to hear your response. If I wanted to know what some pastor thought, I would have asked one.

 

I suppose I could sit here and spout off Dawkins and Harris all day (in fact, there's little doubt that they have influenced my thinking). However at the end of the day, I have to think for myself and form my own opinions about things.

 

Please ask your pastor why God .... Please let me know what he says.

 

P.S. If you think he would be interested in corresponding with me directly, please let me know and I'll give you my email address to give to him next time you see him.

 

Kudos to your pastor. The mental gymnastics here are very impressive.

 

As for your argument (or your pastor's?):

 

In fact, I should probably caution against throwing stones in glass houses right about now.

 

Just what are your intentions with these comments? You suggested I ask my pastor some of these questions, and I asked. Now it appears you are mocking me for following your suggestion and trying to formulate a decent answer. I don't pretend to be anywhere near an apologetics expert, and I don't have an atheist.org website from which to pull my canned, ready-made arguments, because there are subtle but important differences from apologist to apologist, and all of them require very careful reading. I've been working my butt off trying to read Zacharias (who you'd appreciate but who is a very heavy read), Geisler, and Lewis, on top of learning about the history and development of atheism on something more than the initial superficial read I'd given it 20 years back when I was looking at it then, and picking up info on Hume, Kant, Sartre, and so forth, because philosophy was one of the few courses I _didn't_ take when I was an undergrad. I apologize that I'm simply not able to synthesize the equivalent of 3 college courses in a a couple months' time and formulate an answer that meets your level of acceptability.

[Achilles]

Just what are your intentions with these comments?

My intention is address the fact that I'm no longer debating with just you. Apparently you've invited a 3rd set of opinions into our discussions (which is fine). Additionally, you prefaced your comments in such a way as to make me think that you were simply relaying the advice you were given. Nothing more than that.

 

You suggested I ask my pastor some of these questions, and I asked.

I don't recall doing any such thing, but my memory might be failing me.

 

Now it appears you are mocking me for following your suggestion and trying to formulate a decent answer.

No mocking intended. Really. In fact, I'd welcome an opportunity to speak with a religious figure that you hold in high-regard. If that person isn't able to answer my questions or address my points, maybe you'll give my opinions a little more consideration (I don't fool myself into thinking that you've pondered a single point I've made here, although I would be pleasantly surprised to learn that I've read you wrong).

 

I don't pretend to be anywhere near an apologetics expert, and I don't have an atheist.org website from which to pull my canned, ready-made arguments, because there are subtle but important differences from apologist to apologist, and all of them require very careful reading. <snip>

I apologize that I'm simply not able to synthesize the equivalent of 3 college courses in a a couple months' time and formulate an answer that meets your level of acceptability.

If I may, I think you might be putting more thought into this that what's necessary. I try (and often fail, I'm sure) to limit my questions to those that I feel are pertinent to make my point. I don't expect a dissertation, I simply ask you to put blind faith and years of conditioning aside (i.e. temporarily divorce yourself from emotional responses) and examine these things from a rational point of view.

 

I know that questioning beliefs that have been held for a lifetime can be difficult. If they can be defended with reason, then they deserve to be kept. If they rely on faith and don't hold up to reason, then what benefit do they really offer? My 2 cents.

 

Parting thoughts: My apologies if my comments came across as mocking. I think if you read them as they were intended you'll see that they weren't meant to. Thanks.

 

EDIT: I just reread what you quoted. The "mental gymnastics" part was a dig, but for him, not you. Also, I stand behind the "glass houses" comment.

[Nancy Allen``]

This topic of mine has gotten kind of out-of-hand. As SilentScope001 put it, it's a firestorm. This thread was not intended as a debate, merely as a way to discuss views and experiences with Atheists such as myself, not Atheism itself as a belief. I've noticed Achilles and Nancy Allen have been going at it more than anyone, and while I appreciate the viewpoints of both, I think you might have taken my intentions out of context.

 

As I put it in the first post in this thread and this morning, if you're Atheist, you're Atheist, being a jerk about it will only serve to make it look bad. The same for religion. If that's all you're looking for then I think that covers it.

[Jae Onasi]

I don't recall doing any such thing, but my memory might be failing me.

I can't find it atm but I didn't go on an extensive search. It might have been a PM. I might have read something as an implication. Don't know right now.

No mocking intended. Really. In fact, I'd welcome an opportunity to speak with a religious figure that you hold in high-regard. If that person isn't able to answer my questions or address my points, maybe you'll give my opinions a little more consideration (I don't fool myself into thinking that you've pondered a single point I've made here, although I would be pleasantly surprised to learn that I've read you wrong).

Why do you think I'd be willing to put this kind of work into it if I didn't take you seriously? I'm probably one of the few Christians who's willing to be tolerant enough about your viewpoint to talk to you about it, try to understand where you're coming from, and find an answer for your objections. It's rather difficult to try to answer your questions if I don't think about the issues you've raised first. Yes, you did have me pegged wrong in that respect, which I find more distressing than anything else. Just because I don't come to the same conclusion you do doesn't mean I haven't given it some thought.

If I may, I think you might be putting more thought into this that what's necessary. I try (and often fail, I'm sure) to limit my questions to those that I feel are pertinent to make my point. I don't expect a dissertation, I simply ask you to put blind faith and years of conditioning aside (i.e. temporarily divorce yourself from emotional responses) and examine these things from a rational point of view.

I know that questioning beliefs that have been held for a lifetime can be difficult. If they can be defended with reason, then they deserve to be kept. If they rely on faith and don't hold up to reason, then what benefit do they really offer? My 2 cents.

I'm willing to consider many things if you also are willing to put blind 'faith' in atheism aside to consider the possibility that there may be some merit in some of the answers that theism can provide that atheism can never answer satisfactorily.

 

While you may not expect a dissertation, you nevertheless expect answers that are more than superficial. Many of the questions you ask require some serious research to properly understand the deep issues they raise. I'm trying to show that some respect instead of giving a flippant answer, and it requires a great deal of time and effort for me. I have learned some cool things along the way.

Parting thoughts: My apologies if my comments came across as mocking. I think if you read them as they were intended you'll see that they weren't meant to. Thanks.

I'll take you at your word (that's not meant sarcastically, either).

[Achilles]

I can't find it atm but I didn't go on an extensive search. It might have been a PM. I might have read something as an implication. Don't know right now.

Fair enough.

 

Why do you think I'd be willing to put this kind of work into it if I didn't take you seriously?

My hypothesis: Because you think that you're right and I'm wrong.

 

I'm probably one of the few Christians who's willing to be tolerant enough about your viewpoint to talk to you about it, try to understand where you're coming from, and find an answer for your objections.

With all due respect, I can't think of any examples where you have done this. From my perspective, all of my key point have been glossed over or ignored, hence why they keep coming up over and over again. You are very good at presenting your perspective, however no one has been willing to truly engage mine.

 

It's rather difficult to try to answer your questions if I don't think about the issues you've raised first. Yes, you did have me pegged wrong in that respect, which I find more distressing than anything else. Just because I don't come to the same conclusion you do doesn't mean I haven't given it some thought.

That may be.

 

I'm willing to consider many things if you also are willing to put blind 'faith' in atheism aside to consider the possibility that there may be some merit in some of the answers that theism can provide that atheism can never answer satisfactorily.

Faith in atheism is contradictory.

I have stated repeatedly I'm willing to go wherever the evidence leads. That's not just lip-service.

 

I think that you assume that I'm not familiar with religious doctrine or Christianity specifically. I've been a Christian and my experience has been that it offers no answers.

 

It seems to me that if Atheism is so obviously wrong and misguided, it could quickly be derailed with a few sound arguments from religion. Thus far, none have come. From my perspective, this is because it has none to offer. If you have one, I'll be happy to hear it, however you've yet to present any. This isn't an insult, rather an observation.

 

Also, I'd be interested in hearing more about what it is that theism provides that atheism cannot satisfactorily.

 

While you may not expect a dissertation, you nevertheless expect answers that are more than superficial. Many of the questions you ask require some serious research to properly understand the deep issues they raise. I'm trying to show that some respect instead of giving a flippant answer, and it requires a great deal of time and effort for me. I have learned some cool things along the way.

Fair enough. For the most part, I thought my questions were pretty much "what do you think" type questions, however I can see where that may not actually be the case.

 

I'll take you at your word (that's not meant sarcastically, either).

I appreciate it. Thank you.

[Gargoyle King]

At the end of the day - i feel that whether someone believes in a God or nor is irrelevant, i feel that its best to concentrate on how we live our lives and how we treat each other. I'll be frank - i myself am Atheist but i still respect people if they believe in a God as that is their choice in life.

[Darth InSidious]

I apologise for the delay in replying, I was on retreat over Easter. Here is the post I wrote beforehand in its entirety, but could not post due to login problems (we apologise for the inconvenience):

 

I appreciate the comparison, however the fact still remains that he was not an an atheist.

Funny, I don't recall claiming that he was. Rather, I pointed out his somewhat unusual 'positive' Christianity, and his disdain for the more mainstream ideas therein.

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Adolf Hitler

Said on the day of the Enabling Act vote! Good grief man, do you know nothing about historiography? At the very least, you are quoting out of context to a huge degree! Clearly the point of this is to reassure those who would be reassured that he would use this new power responsibly, while he bullied those who would not by surrounding the opera house where they had met, following the Reichstag Fire which may or may not have been started by the Nazis, with men drawn from the Sturm Abteilung. It is clearly a political move. The context shows that quite clearly.

I concede that his apparent belief may have been political rather than personal, however this is theory and not fact. Taking Hitler at his word, it's clear that he was a religious man.

I never denied this. However, it is also clear from what he said in private, with those he trusted, and perhaps even cared for, that he had no liking for traditional Christianity. As I have shown you, he was not a Catholic - as his actions in imprisoning a quarter of all Catholic priests as well as other persecutions should show. Fear of the reprisals was all that prevented him and the rest of the Nazi Party from more vicious attacks, as shown by their own notes.

Their regimes were based upon what they thought best for society, not necessarily what reasoned examination of ethics would prescribe. Again, Mao and Stalin are examples of the dangers of dogmatic thinking, not atheistic thinking.

My point was rather that if Hitler were a Catholic as you said, he would be going against a morality that was absolute and of the highest imperative. Stalin and Mao, however, went against more relative moralities, which would be easier to bend and break. They were atheist, and presumably had some morality. Their actions, therefore, would seem to be due in part to their morality, if they in fact believed in a morality. I would posit that their consciences were severely malformed, but then this should be quite clear.

 

It is also interesting to note the number of atheist states, and what has happened in those cases. The only one I can think of is Turkey, where even now it is dangerous to be Christian, outward displays of religion can be dangerous, many Greek Orthodox have been deported due to the Istanbul Pogrom and the Patriarch of Antioch, last I heard, was under house arrest, while his office, cemeteries et al. have been bombed and otherwise assaulted.

 

Please note I will be away until Sunday.

[Achilles]

Funny, I don't recall claiming that he was. Rather, I pointed out his somewhat unusual 'positive' Christianity, and his disdain for the more mainstream ideas therein.

Funny, I don't recall claiming that you did.

 

I was simply making a point. A point that you appear not to argue here, but do later in your post. Since there appears to be a contradiction, I have to ask for clarification. Was Hitler a Catholic or wasn't he? If he was not, then what were his theological views?

 

Said on the day of the Enabling Act vote! Good grief man, do you know nothing about historiography?

Considering the number of conversations you've "excused" yourself from, I caution you that your use of this tone is quite hypocritical, sir.

 

At the very least, you are quoting out of context to a huge degree!

The only way that comment could be taken out of context is if it were preceded by something along the lines of "The following is something that you will never hear me say" or followed by "sike!" or "not!".

 

Clearly the point of this is to reassure those who would be reassured that he would use this new power responsibly, while he bullied those who would not by surrounding the opera house where they had met, following the Reichstag Fire which may or may not have been started by the Nazis, with men drawn from the Sturm Abteilung. It is clearly a political move. The context shows that quite clearly.

It's also possible that he said it because he meant it. Your theory is a good one, but it is not the only one. Furthermore, I'll think you'll have quite a difficult time proving your case.

 

I never denied this. However, it is also clear from what he said in private, with those he trusted, and perhaps even cared for, that he had no liking for traditional Christianity. As I have shown you, he was not a Catholic - as his actions in imprisoning a quarter of all Catholic priests as well as other persecutions should show. Fear of the reprisals was all that prevented him and the rest of the Nazi Party from more vicious attacks, as shown by their own notes.

Cue aforementioned contradiction.

 

My point was rather that if Hitler were a Catholic as you said, he would be going against a morality that was absolute and of the highest imperative.

And this absolute moral imperative has its basis in what? The highly contradictory Bible? Your incredulity is not proof, nor it is a sound argument.

 

Stalin and Mao, however, went against more relative moralities, which would be easier to bend and break.

Is your argument against non-religious ethics or the authoritarians that held such "ethics"?

 

They were atheist, and presumably had some morality.

I'm glad you included "presumably". Did you have something other that supposition?

 

Their actions, therefore, would seem to be due in part to their morality, if they in fact believed in a morality. I would posit that their consciences were severely malformed, but then this should be quite clear.

Indeed it is! Unfortunately, this puts your argument on shaky ground.

 

It is also interesting to note the number of atheist states, and what has happened in those cases. The only one I can think of is Turkey, where even now it is dangerous to be Christian, outward displays of religion can be dangerous, many Greek Orthodox have been deported due to the Istanbul Pogrom and the Patriarch of Antioch, last I heard, was under house arrest, while his office, cemeteries et al. have been bombed and otherwise assaulted.

According to the UN, Turkey is 99% Muslim. The state may be officially secular, but the people are not. State imposed secularism is very different from cultural secularism, as I'm sure you're well aware.

 

What of Norway?

[Darth InSidious]

Funny, I don't recall claiming that you did.

 

I was simply making a point. A point that you appear not to argue here, but do later in your post. Since there appears to be a contradiction, I have to ask for clarification. Was Hitler a Catholic or wasn't he? If he was not, then what were his theological views?

He wasn't, at least in what he believed in private. I think this much is quite clear from his actions.

Considering the number of conversations you've "excused" yourself from, I caution you that your use of this tone is quite hypocritical, sir.

I see no correlation between the two.

The only way that comment could be taken out of context is if it were preceded by something along the lines of "The following is something that you will never hear me say" or followed by "sike!" or "not!".

I suggest you check your dictionary.

It's also possible that he said it because he meant it. Your theory is a good one, but it is not the only one. Furthermore, I'll think you'll have quite a difficult time proving your case.

No, its not the only theory. But it is the one which fits most with events, Hitler's character, the actions of the Nazi Party etc - in short, the context.

Cue aforementioned contradiction.

I never denied that he held a religious belief - only that he was Catholic.

And this absolute moral imperative has its basis in what? The highly contradictory Bible? Your incredulity is not proof, nor it is a sound argument.

Actually, in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, founded in Tradition and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the New Testament, which is believed by Catholics to be at the least, inspired by the word of God. Furthermore, the Pope is, as I am sure you are aware, infallible on matters of faith and morals. IF (and note that this is a hypothetical situation) Hitler had been a Catholic, as you inferred, he would have gone against an absolute moral standpoint, as opposed to a relative moral standpoint, from which one can veer more easily.

 

Is your argument against non-religious ethics or the authoritarians that held such "ethics"?

My argument is that moral relativism is easy to manipulate to your own ends - easier than absolute moralities, at least.

 

I'm glad you included "presumably". Did you have something other that supposition?

 

Indeed it is! Unfortunately, this puts your argument on shaky ground.

I think perhaps you missed the point - the combination of moral relativism and a malformed conscience is, I think you will agree, a dangerous one.

According to the UN, Turkey is 99% Muslim. The state may be officially secular, but the people are not. State imposed secularism is very different from cultural secularism, as I'm sure you're well aware.

Yes, but it does nonetheless seem that as a secular state, Turkey is failing to defend the Patriarch from the mob, which would seem to show a pro-Islamic bias. Whether this is on the ground or in the parliament buildings, it would seem to be there.

What of Norway?

Is this the same Norway with an established Lutheran church? What of it?

[Scyrone]

Atheism isn't a belief... it is a lack thereof.

 

I would have to disagree on this matter. Everything is a belief, but not everything is a religion. Atheism is the belief of no religion or any superiority of being in mankind or in the Universe for that matter.

 

Some believe they have the right and duty to persecute religion and that gives Atheism a bad name.

 

The thing is that the majority of anti-Atheists persecute everyone who does not believe what they do. This is completely natural in idea, but unnatural in how it goes down. Personally, I feel there are a lot of Christians who believe that since they think they are right they have every right to persecute, as long as they are not persecuted back.

 

But, I think it is likely that Atheism will soon take over the world. There is no need for God, and we will finally be waking up to that realization. Soon, the shackles of religion will be broken, and all religions will die. This is my view, and it is based on the fact that they approach the issue in a logical manner, and they got the aid of Science.

 

Even though I am a strong Satanist (LaVey Satanist; basically extreme Atheism), I do not believe this statement is true. We have the logical aid of science, but the majority of people now days ignore science completely and focus on numbers, e.g. 80% of Americans are Christians so it must be true. Look at American principles today, basically anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, anti-divorce, anti-anything-against-God. The way the world is going I think that Christianity will soon takeover almost the majority of everything. All because of belief. No true religion is fact, only few are. Those who base religion of the now and the human-life are true; not science, not belief, but reality. Don’t mean to be bias here, but Satanism is one of the only religions that is true fact. We don’t focus on disproving God, we focus on ourselves, our lives, and our carnal nature displayed in every living being. Nobody admires that way of living anymore.

 

"persecution of religion"

 

Persecution of religion is more of denying the existence of any other belief other than your own (or religion for that matter), there is nothing wring with it, but sometimes the ways it goes down is completely intolerable to the persecuted.

 

If you're saying that theists aren't harming anyone by being theists and should be left alone, you're wrong. American theism is influencing our ability to prepare our children for the future by introducing pseudo-science such as Intelligent Design and working to vilify legitimate science such as evolutionary theory. By far the largest voting group is Evangelical, therefore they are determining which elected officials make it into public office and which agenda items are put on the front burner. The list goes on and on.

 

I would say so far this is the most accurate quote of how America is portrayed now.

 

Islam is arguably the fastest growing religion in the world and they are the ones churning out terrorists by the dozen. Muslims with college educations go to their deaths "knowing" that their actions will a) kill Allah's enemies and b) ensure their place in paradise. We might say, "well that's ridiculous", but then again we're Muslim-atheists.

 

Well, not necessarily. Islam is not what the Radical extremists of Iraq and Iran make it out to be. Truly, Islam is peaceful. I think this is a bad portrayal of Islamic belief.

 

Honestly, I just saw how long the thread was, so of course I am not going to look at every post.

 

I think that the way Atheists are perceived is an abomination to all of mankind. For a people who try to promote the human way of living and how to make humanity greater, they get too much criticism. Do people not see that they are helping all of us with there ways? If you dislike Atheists and believe they are wrong then tell me how your beliefs make us better? Tell me how Christianity will help us? Will there be another 15-18 Crusades sprouting from Christianity? (or has that already started on the grounds of Iraq, and North Korea?)

[Nancy Allen``]

North Korea has nuclear weapons and is threatening to use them. There are more grounds to attack them than Iraq, but it hasn't. Unless Kim Jong declares Jihad or a war on believers religion can be safely ruled out as a motive.

 

Being intolerent of religion, Anti-theism, I think that gets a lot of backs up. But it goes the other way as well. I don't want to hear you preaching Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Atheism to me. I don't care if you're peddling Jedi beliefs, I'm not interested. Same goes for politics, I don't care if you're Democratic, Republican, Labor, Liberal, an extreme Greenie, a fence riding wuss or any combination of the above. If you're any of those things, great, you are, and I apologise if my words upset you at all. You're not going to do yourself any favors bringing it up at every opportunity. I think that's part of the problem with Atheists in that some do beat people into the ground about it and are arrogant, bullying, condescending, double standered, egomaniacal, Jae can probably direct you to an example but unless she does I don't think it's my place to. The same could be said of those who believe in religion, I may have even seen such cases, but whenever the topic comes up the no right to belief Atheist stance is something I've always seen stick out and I think others can say the same thing.

 

This is a warning for flaming--this sounds way too much like an attack on Scyrone, and even if it's not it's general name-calling and definitely not in the friendly spirit of this forum. Keep it civil, please. --Jae

 

I didn't mean it to be, and I apologise.

 

Don't edit moderator edits or delete warnings, either. --Jae

[Achilles]

He wasn't, at least in what he believed in private. I think this much is quite clear from his actions.

Really? How? Isn't killing promoted in the Bible? Aren't there grounds for anti-semitism in the NT? So how would Hitler's actions contradict Catholicism? Or is it more likely that they contradict your view of Catholicism?

 

I see no correlation between the two.

The correlation is that one that excuses themselves from tough questions should not presume to act as though they have a superior intellect.

 

I suggest you check your dictionary.

Gladly. Which word?

 

No, its not the only theory. But it is the one which fits most with events, Hitler's character, the actions of the Nazi Party etc - in short, the context.

The context as you see it. Let me try this another way? Do you believe that Usama bin Laden really believes in Islam?

 

I never denied that he held a religious belief - only that he was Catholic.

Ok, then which religion did he subscribe to?

 

Actually, in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, founded in Tradition and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the New Testament, which is believed by Catholics to be at the least, inspired by the word of God. Furthermore, the Pope is, as I am sure you are aware, infallible on matters of faith and morals. IF (and note that this is a hypothetical situation) Hitler had been a Catholic, as you inferred, he would have gone against an absolute moral standpoint, as opposed to a relative moral standpoint, from which one can veer more easily.

So in other words, because some men you've never met said so. The Pope in certainly not infallable, however I do acknowledge that you've been conditioned to think so because of your religious traditions. If you have some evidence to support your claim, I'd be more than happy to have a look at it.

 

IF Hitler was a Catholic, then he would have been yet one more person that cherry-picked from the Bible to support his or her viewpoint. Perhaps if the Bible were less contradictory, such actions wouldn't be possible.

 

My argument is that moral relativism is easy to manipulate to your own ends - easier than absolute moralities, at least.

I'm sorry. Who here is arguing for moral relativism? My argument (as is the case for most atheists and some moral philosopers) is that absolute morality does not come from God. In many cases the morals that are attributed to God are found lacking compared to morals that can be derived for reasoned examination of ethics.

 

I think perhaps you missed the point - the combination of moral relativism and a malformed conscience is, I think you will agree, a dangerous one.

Agreed! Hence why I'm an atheist.

 

Yes, but it does nonetheless seem that as a secular state, Turkey is failing to defend the Patriarch from the mob, which would seem to show a pro-Islamic bias. Whether this is on the ground or in the parliament buildings, it would seem to be there.

I will not be moving the goalpost, sir. I asked for an example of an atheist state run amok and you offered a 99% Muslim country.

 

Is this the same Norway with an established Lutheran church? What of it?

Yes, the Norway where only 36% of the population considers themselves religious compared to the 46% that consider themselves non-religions (with an additional 9% explicitly atheistic). Any Norwegian mobs looking to take over the world that we should be concerned about? How's their murder rate? Adult literacy? All I know is that they've held the top spot on the UN Human Development Index for the last 7 years.

[Nancy Allen``]

Here's something I wanted to offer up. A friend of mine had his cat operated on, his leg had to be amputated, and he was praying daily for it to be given a good quality of life. Well the cat's gone missing, it was locked up, there was no way it could have escaped, there's nothing at all to show that it did escape or is somehow hiding. Maybe, just maybe, God answered the prayer and had done something to benefit the cat. Can Atheists in their infinite wisdom provide any other explanation?

[Emperor Devon]

Don’t mean to be bias here, but Satanism is one of the only religions that is true fact. We don’t focus on disproving God, we focus on ourselves, our lives, and our carnal nature displayed in every living being. Nobody admires that way of living anymore.

 

Too much sometimes IMO. Some of the Satanic Rules sound more greedy than simply placing importance on the self.

 

If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

 

When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

 

LeVayen Satanism despite the name has some okay ideas (mainly the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" ones), but some of them are very harsh IMO.

 

I would hesitate to call it true Atheism - Atheism is nothing but a disbelief in God (or Gods) without any other philosophies. Even the idea of living a good life and helping others which many Atheists believe isn't unique to their non-religion. That LeVayen Satanists also view Satan a prominent symbol makes them even less similar (as Atheism has no such things).

 

Satanism is a lot more like Objectivism or individualism IMO. If you've read anything by Friedrich Nietzsche or Ayn Rand you can see a ton of similarities between their philosophies and LeVey's (who he said influenced his writings considerably).

[SykoRevan]

I agree with Emperor Devon more than I do with Scyrone, especially about Satanism being an extreme Atheism. Although I cannot agree with either when it comes to whether Atheism is a belief or a nonbelief. In my opinion, it is like the "glass half empty/glass half full" philosophy, in that it depends on the view of the Atheist whether they simply do not believe in any religion, or as I see it, a belief that there is no God. And any comparison between Atheism and Satanism is, quite simply, misplaced (and in my opinion, the Atheist equivalent of blasphemy), as the two are completely different. The only people I have heard saying that Atheism and Satanism are alike are religious people, including clergy and my own parents, who's view was obscured, and who I frankly thought were ignorant. Not saying Scyrone is ignorant for his comment, but he should know the line between the two is very finely drawn.

[Achilles]

Although I cannot agree with either when it comes to whether Atheism is a belief or a nonbelief. In my opinion, it is like the "glass half empty/glass half full" philosophy, in that it depends on the view of the Atheist whether they simply do not believe in any religion, or as I see it, a belief that there is no God.

It's a crude, but apt, analogy to think of it as a scale. To say that atheism is a belief in no God would be like saying atheism is at -100 on the scale. In fact, atheism is the scale at 0. I don't have a belief that there is no God because there is no reason at all to believe that there is one. Basing atheism on belief categorizes it with other beliefs, where it clearly does not belong.

 

And any comparison between Atheism and Satanism is, quite simply, misplaced (and in my opinion, the Atheist equivalent of blasphemy), as the two are completely different.

My understanding of Satanism is limited, so please forgive me if I'm getting it wrong here. My understanding of Satanism is that it is a belief in God while renouncing him. Believing in the existence of Satan requires the belief in the existence of God. Atheist have no reason to believe in either.

 

The only people I have heard saying that Atheism and Satanism are alike are religious people, including clergy and my own parents, who's view was obscured, and who I frankly thought were ignorant. Not saying Scyrone is ignorant for his comment, but he should know the line between the two is very finely drawn.

It's a common misconception, as I point out above.

[SykoRevan]

It's a crude, but apt, analogy to think of it as a scale. To say that atheism is a belief in no God would be like saying atheism is at -100 on the scale. In fact, atheism is the scale at 0. I don't have a belief that there is no God because there is no reason at all to believe that there is one. Basing atheism on belief categorizes it with other beliefs, where it clearly does not belong.

 

Like I said, it's all about how the individual views it, and I think comparing belief to a scale is indeed a crude way to view something as complex as the beliefs of another. There is Weak Atheism, which is more along the lines of Agnosticism, then there is Strong Atheism, which can be associated with Anti-theism, which is not only a disbelief in religion, but an outright oppostion to it. I'm pretty much the latter. I view my own brand of Atheism as not just a skepticism of religion, but an outright oppostion to the existence of a deity of any kind. It's how I view my own beliefs, and I know that others view things differently, but I know that some people see Atheism as a lack of belief, but I view my own as a belief in itself. So if someone asks me "do you belief God doesn't exist?" I'll proudly say "Yes I belief that God does not exist."

[Achilles]

*shrugs*

 

To each their own, however I do see your point that it can be difficult to operationally define atheism. From my perspective, "outright opposing the existence of a deity" would be something like trying to kickbox with an imaginary opponent . I find carrying an "anti-belief" to be equally productive, but as you point out we each have our own way of seeing things.

[Nancy Allen``]

Atheism and religion in itself are not problems. A large part of the problem is from the smugness people get from it that makes them think they are better than everyone else. If people chose not to look down the noses of those who do not hold the beliefs they do then I think it would be far more openly accepted and not criticised.

[JediMaster12]

Atheism and religion in itself are not problems. A large part of the problem is from the smugness people get from it that makes them think they are better than everyone else. If people chose not to look down the noses of those who do not hold the beliefs they do then I think it would be far more openly accepted and not criticised.

Dare to dream Nancy Allen but it is a nice dream. On a general note, this discussion on atheism is one on a minority group. Like other minority groups, there are certain characteristics that classify it as such and hence we get stereotypes. One could say that an atheist is a hard core science person who believes in big bang and evolution but that doesn't classify all of them. That is part of the problem that we have in getting along. We are very polarized in our perceptions of people that it is hard to see that there are people who don't fit the mold. If you are looking for someone to blame, blame it on the forefathers with the concept of slavery or blame the media for aggravating the stereotypes. We can all point fingers but the hardest part is owning up to the fact that we may be wrong in our perceptions.