LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteNo.
Prof
Interesting discussion…..my 2 cents for what it’s worth is that man does not need religion to act morally or ethically. Religions however do codify what is considered moral conduct as it relates to their particular set of beliefs, just as human beings will act within the accepted mores of their social grouping, tribe or culture.
Moral codes of conduct are merely survival tools that tend to bind a group together, whether or not these codes of conduct are “good” or “evil” would be determined based on the observer’s own set of moral codes of conduct.
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
No.
Prof
Care to elaborate ?Originally Posted by Prof
Buy the ticket, take the ride.
"Is Athiesm responsible for the tryants of the 20th century?"
Thread title.
Misspelled as it is.
No = answer.
Others before me have made lengthier arguments.
Many of these have been in the form of "This horrible mutt was an athiest." or "this horrible mutt was a religion enthusiast." While many of these assertions are no doubt true, & while I personally think that religion more generally predisposes potential tyrants toward tyranny, & does that to regular people as well, the fact is that all of the murderous tyrants mentioned in the arguments wore trousers. And, if they were well heeled, shoes as well.
Prof
So i came made some trouble and of course am destined to return.
The question is whether or not it is a fair argument to assert that though religion is at the core of many events of great tragedy, is not atheism the root of even greater atrocities, specifically those dealing with eugenics programs?
Of course not. I have not read any of the prior comments on this thread, but I will after I give my initial response to the first question, so be fair in my synopsis of belief.
Of course atheism is not the root of corruption, the root of corruption is man's acceptance of corruption. Only through force of action can we assert that something is oppressing us or causing any kind of change upon our way of living.
This question is not naive, but it definitely is a swayed question, as in it is an either or, allowing for no interpretation of the subtly of theological or scientific subtly. The question invariably answers itself, as within the context of the question we see examples of both facets of belief (atheists or otherwise) ending with negative and catastrophic results. It seems that niether philisophical belief choice makes an outcome inevitable, rather we seem to end up with Stalin's when we allow them to continue doing what they are doing.
I've been thinking about this somewhat. To me, to kill so many people, does not even deserve a ranking. These regimes all had institutionalised killing, where for the most part, those involved in the final policy, did not have the burden of having to stomach the murder as much as the machine they had made, undertook it.
From that perspective their very removal from the cold hard killing makes ranking almost irrelevant. Hermann Goering exemplified the removal from reality at Nuremberg. He was a grandstanding moron with no grip on the reality of a machine which undertook action without much intervention from the very highest levels of government. Which goes some way to explaining their complete removal from the fact at the trials, despite ordering it.
In terms of witness personal cruelty, Genghis would have to rank in the thick of it, as well as the Spanish Inquisition, events in Rwanda/Congo would definitely have to rank extreem.
Last edited by Chunder; 08 Jan 10, at 18:21.
Ego Numquam
Despite the fact that I would be described as an athiest by others I have come to dislike the term. Why should our beliefs on matters of where it all came from and how we out to act be referenced to the fact that we are not religious, as the word athiesm implies? I believe that there are scientific answers to the origins of the universe, though we may not be smart enough to comprehend them all in our present state of evolution. I also believe that we ought to conduct our lives with due consideration to the welfare of others. To my way of thinking a more positive, assertive title for that than athiesm is rational humanism.
a⋅the⋅ism
/ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [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.
From Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com
So if this is a reliable definition (and im sure other sources will agree with it) there is no need for one who believes there is no god, or supreme beings to dislike someone recognizing the true premise which he holds to.
So Although getting off topic, being described as a rational humanist will have no bearing on you also being described as an athiest.
That is true but its a matter of preference for me and I'm putting the idea out there for others like me. I dislike language that describes everybodies beliefs in relation to organised religion, as I think it unjustifiably elevates the status of religion and results in rational humanists (or whatever else people like to call themselves) constantly justifying their beliefs against its pretences. Ignoring something that you disagree with can often do more to reduce its importance than arguing about it.
But you are right, that is getting off topic so that is my say on the matter and I willl leave it at that.
Sam Harris argues that there shouldn't even be a word for Atheism.
You don't have 'A-astrologers' for example. He argues that the word just provides the religiously minded an opportunity to paint Atheism as a belief system.
Last edited by zara; 11 Jan 10, at 14:50.
Interesting take. I've always painted myself as an agnostic antitheist.
Prof
'agnostic antitheist' never heard that one before
'antithiest' - This is Christopher Hitchens term for 'in opposition to thiesm' (as apposed to athiesm which simply denies theism) So as an agnotstic antithiest you are undecided as to whether you oppose thiesm?
Nah. Just that I oppose the assigned behavior of the unlikely Theos' (theos=deus; essentially the same word) & would wish to kick his/her/its ass if I could bring him/her/it to account. F*ck omnipotence. The assholes I had to fight repetitively in Jr Hi were also omnipotent, at least as far as I was concerned, they kicked my ass infallibly, & I don't regret my participation one bit.
Prof
Thats a bit extreem. I can't believe that eliminating the word from our vocabulary would make any difference to anybody, only make it difficult to describe those who don't believe in God.
Granted there is no such word as A-astrologer, I would think mainly due to the fact that there isn't much of a need for it. But, due to the prevalence of people who dont believe in a theos, the word "Atheism" is needed.
Well there is a prevalence of people who don't believe in astrology either. I think he uses this argument to highlight the absurdity of religious belief - when there is an absurd proposition we don't grant that proposition undue legitimacy by defining ourselves in opposition to it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: