What's the meaning of life to an atheist?

[worrywort]

I hold that all morality comes from people, and that the religious books are written by people which give other people their morality. Of course you disagree, so look at it this way--if you study, as I have, all the major religious texts, you will see a basic morality common to all of them. Do unto others, etc, by and large. You will also see morality evolving as we as a species evolve socially. If you read the old testament and compare it to the new, do you not see this? Eye for an eye is a lot different than the (alleged, of course) teachings of Jesus. If God is the absolute morality, then how could absolute morality change over time anyway? Absolute is supposed to be...absolute, that's it, the word, no?

ok, so would you say that the new testament morality is "better" than the old testament morality? Would you call it moral progress and do you believe that it's possible for human societies to progress morally? If so, what would you say they are progressing toward? What, to you, would be the absolute good? Love, peace and understanding perhaps? That humans could live without pain perhaps? If so, why? Why not survival of the fittest, each to their own, do as you please?

sorry, that's a lot of questions, which you don't have to answer, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at. It seems to me that to even talk about morality, of things being right or wrong, better or worse, is totally meaningless unless there is a standard on which to differentiate between right or wrong? i.e. in a game of tennis to say that the ball was "out" would be meaningless unless both players had predecided a set of rules that dictated where "in" and "out" lie.

So the real question for me is where is this set of standards? Is it objective or relative? Is it a real thing, outside of human beings, that we discover and unveil just like numbers and maths? Or is it an illusory thing, relative from culture to culture?

and the way to find this out I think is to ask yourself, are there any morals that are absolutely true for all people at all times? For example do you believe it is ever ok to be racist? To treat another human being as inferior because of the colour of their skin? Or would torturing babies for fun ever be permissible to you in certain societies? [sorry, crude questions, that, again, you don't have to answer!]

Different cultures throughout history may differ peripherally in their moral values, but at their core there is a "basic morality common to all of them. Do unto others, etc" as you say. My question is why, if morality is supposedly relative?

If objective values exist then there must be a source or provider of those objective values [i.e. God], but if they do not exist then the terms "right" and "wrong" lose all there meaning. You may aswell invent a sport that has no rules and let people play as they please. One person would call the ball "out", another would call it "in", but without the set of rules governing the game, their dispute would be meaningless cause neither would be "right" or "wrong".

p.s. one final note, just to clear up, I'm most definitely not implying that to be a good person you must believe in God. There are good Christians, there are bad Christians, there are good atheists and there are bad atheists. That's not my point. My point is that a bad Christian would be in violation of their worldview, whereas for a bad atheist there would be no violation.

 

[NathanielWingatePeaslee]

The discussion atheism vs religion is stupid like always. Atheists trying to prove how religious people are immoral and vice versa. As if it wasn't clear, so why to lead lenghty discussions about it?

I'm not an atheist and I don't think moral behavior has anything to do with religion.

And I engage in discussions like this because it's fun!

 

[NathanielWingatePeaslee]

ok, so would you say that the new testament morality is "better" than the old testament morality?

Yes, absolutely. Morality changes and evolves over time. Back when people were first starting to gather together and live in cities, the normal and accepted morality was vengeance. If I break your arm, you break my skull and maybe kill my brother as well. Escalation was common. So a few geniuses like Hammurabi came up with ideas like 'eye for an eye', which was a huge leap forward. It halted the escalation of violence. These things were the basis of old testament justice and morality. It caught on because it was in everyone's best interests.

Skip forward in time and people are realizing that the system could use improvement, so then you have the teachings of Jesus, the Buddha, and others. Love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, and so on. More complex and sophisticated than eye for an eye, and another improvement thanks to the evolution of society. These things also caught on (more or less) because they were in everyone's best interests.

Would you call it moral progress and do you believe that it's possible for human societies to progress morally? If so, what would you say they are progressing toward? What, to you, would be the absolute good? Love, peace and understanding perhaps? That humans could live without pain perhaps? If so, why? Why not survival of the fittest, each to their own, do as you please?

Morality was invented to help keep society together (especially as groups became larger and less familial/personal), so to me it boils down to the golden rule, don't you agree? Or, in the words of the great prophets William and Theodore, "Be excellent to each other".

As far as how far a society can evolve morally, this is limited by the nature of our species--our brains will have to evolve further before our behavior towards each other gets much better, regardless of anyone's moral ideals or writings in books.

sorry, that's a lot of questions, which you don't have to answer, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at. It seems to me that to even talk about morality, of things being right or wrong, better or worse, is totally meaningless unless there is a standard on which to differentiate between right or wrong? i.e. in a game of tennis to say that the ball was "out" would be meaningless unless both players had predecided a set of rules that dictated where "in" and "out" lie.

Like you and everyone else, I am a product of my time, but to me morality is basically about people nice (or at least not being crappy) to each other, which is a common ground most of us can probably agree on.

So the real question for me is where is this set of standards? Is it objective or relative? Is it a real thing, outside of human beings, that we discover and unveil just like numbers and maths? Or is it an illusory thing, relative from culture to culture?

It is created by humans so that we can live with each other. Some of these humans are religious, some are not.

and the way to find this out I think is to ask yourself, are there any morals that are absolutely true for all people at all times? For example do you believe it is ever ok to be racist? To treat another human being as inferior because of the colour of their skin? Or would torturing babies for fun ever be permissible to you in certain societies? [sorry, crude questions, that, again, you don't have to answer!]

Different cultures throughout history may differ peripherally in their moral values, but at their core there is a "basic morality common to all of them. Do unto others, etc" as you say. My question is why, if morality is supposedly relative?

Hopefully my previous statements in this post answered these to your satisfaction.

If objective values exist then there must be a source or provider of those objective values [i.e. God], but if they do not exist then the terms "right" and "wrong" lose all there meaning. You may aswell invent a sport that has no rules and let people play as they please. One person would call the ball "out", another would call it "in", but without the set of rules governing the game, their dispute would be meaningless cause neither would be "right" or "wrong".

Society as a whole provides the values, and the values have changed over the centuries with the general trend of moral ideals making it less acceptable to be crappy to each other. As pointed out, some societies do things others find objectionable--like the killing of female babies. IMO such a society is less evolved in that particular aspect.

p.s. one final note, just to clear up, I'm most definitely not implying that to be a good person you must believe in God. There are good Christians, there are bad Christians, there are good atheists and there are bad atheists. That's not my point. My point is that a bad Christian would be in violation of their worldview, whereas for a bad atheist there would be no violation.

And my point is that a religious person has no more absolute moral standard than an atheist. Literally millions of people believe they are following the absolute moral standard given by God who follow Sharia Law (Sharia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), which I find morally objectionable and really f'd up towards women. If different people believing in God can have such different standards of morality, how can there be an absolute standard given by God at all?

ETA When I was reading that wiki article on Sharia law just then, I realized it seems to have been edited to make it look more favorable to women than it is in real life. But eh, you get the idea.

 

[worrywort]

ok, I have more questions, lol, if you don't mind, feel free to tell me to shut up at any point!

So, if I'm correct your belief is that our sense of morality has evolved over the generations, with the highest standard being that which benefits people the most. Morality progresses because ultimately the reforms are in everybodys best interests. I think/hope I have that correct?

Ok, here's a few possible problems that you might like to chew on. What if someone comes along one day and disagree's with you, and decides that "to hell with everyone's best interest, I'm gonna do my own thing and slaughter hundreds and thousands of people just for the fun of it". Sure, his genes may not get passed on to future generations and people like him may be phased out as humans evolve, but could you actually say that he had done anything really "wrong" without assuming the existence of an objective moral law. Remember, if there is no objective moral law then earth is just a board game with no rules and no rule maker. We are the pieces and we construct the rules as we please. This man will have done nothing worse than to disagree with popular opinion and to stay true to the ultimate truth of his worldview, that there is no ultimate rule maker and so human beings are free to create our own morals as we please. Does this not seem strange to you? What if this man decided to slaughter your loved ones AND he managed to get away with it? Would you not crave justice? and if so, why? Wouldn't that be inconsistent with your worldview?

Here's a second problem. If our sense of morality has evolved over time and human beings are nothing more than highly evolved animals, then our moral attitudes are just instincts, would you agree? The instincts to help our neighbours, to treat each other decently, to not betray anothers trust, to be selfless, etc. But feeling an instinct to help your neighbour is very different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. For example [btw I'm borrowing a lot from CS Lewis in this post, just FYI! I'll leave a link at the bottom], imagine you hear a cry for help from a drowning stranger, you'll probably be feeling two desires; one will be your desire to help [the instinct that has evolved with us], and the other will be a desire to keep out of danger [the instinct for self-preservation]. But you'll also notice a third thing that tells you that you ought to help and should supress your impulse to run away. Now this third thing that judges between two impulses, can not itself be either. For example sheet music that tells you which notes to play, can not itself be one of the notes.

Another way of looking at it is like this. If our moral attitudes are just instincts then whenever two instincts are in conflict, the stronger of the two should win, but often this is not the case. In reality our stronger instinct may well be to run away and get safe and to not help the stranger who is drowning, but this third thing will tell us that we really ought to help.

and a third way of looking at it is like this. If these instincts for moral behaviour have evolved with us, then we'd expect to find some instincts that we can call "good" and some we'd call "bad". Why is it, then, that sometimes we feel we ought to supress the "good" instinct, for example, in cases of euphanasia, or when a soldier goes to war. There is a third thing at play instructing and directing our instincts, and this I'd call our conscience. The thing inside of us that tells us which instinct to follow and which instinct to supress can not itself be one of the instincts. The moral law is the sheet music, our conscience is our ability to read that sheet music, our instincts are merely the keys.

And a third problem is justice. In your view what would be the fate of all criminals, cheats and law breakers, whos crimes go unnoticed or unpunished? What happens to all the people that have done you wrong in your lifetime? Will there not be an ultimate justice for all mankind to balance the scales once and for all? If not, what does that say? If you can commit crimes but get away with it then you're free to do so?

If different people believing in God can have such different standards of morality, how can there be an absolute standard given by God at all?

when you have a personal moral dilemma, you may, at first, not know what the "right" thing to do is. You may very well attempt to go down several "wrong" paths and still not find the "right" path, but does that mean that there is no "right" path out there to be found? No, you would continue to search until you discover what you believe to be the "right" thing to do in your situation. Morality changes and differs from culture to culture, but surely it is still possible for one culture to be closer to the "right" path than another. For example, as you mentioned, I assume you would consider a culture that follows Sharia law "worse" than your own opinion of how a culture should behave. Or for a more obvious example; is a christian culture better than a nazi culture, or a civilised culture better than a savage culture? Now, again, I assume you would agree that some cultures can be morally "better" than others, as I do, but here's the thing, the moment you do this you are also assuming a standard on which to differentiate between better and worse. But the standard that measures two things can not be one of the two things themselves. right? If I had an idea of what New York is like, and you had an idea of what New York is like, neither of our ideas could be any truer or less true than the other unless there actually existed a real New York to compare against. So as societies morally progress they must be morally progressing towards a real state of absolute goodness. Otherwise the terms "better" and "worse" become totally meaningless.

phew, there's a lot of questions there so don't feel you have to reply to all or even any of them!

C.S.Lewis - Mere Christianity [book 1 starts in part 2 - 6 mins 28 secs, and ends in part 8 - 1 min 55secs]

 

[NathanielWingatePeaslee]

So, if I'm correct your belief is that our sense of morality has evolved over the generations, with the highest standard being that which benefits people the most. Morality progresses because ultimately the reforms are in everybodys best interests. I think/hope I have that correct?

Sounds about right.

Ok, here's a few possible problems that you might like to chew on. What if someone comes along one day and disagree's with you, and decides that "to hell with everyone's best interest, I'm gonna do my own thing and slaughter hundreds and thousands of people just for the fun of it". Sure, his genes may not get passed on to future generations and people like him may be phased out as humans evolve, but could you actually say that he had done anything really "wrong" without assuming the existence of an objective moral law.

People do immoral things all the time. I do not require the help of the gods to judge them as having done wrong, and neither do you. Let's go back to the previously mentioned example of pedophilia. The bible says nothing about it. If God (I'm assuming the Christian version of God in your case, yes?) is the absolute moral standard, and He provides no guidance on this, do you not think it is wrong? Do you not know it is wrong?

Remember, if there is no objective moral law then earth is just a board game with no rules and no rule maker. We are the pieces and we construct the rules as we please.

I make no such assumptions--those are yours and I do not share them.

This man will have done nothing worse than to disagree with popular opinion

Morality is more than just popular opinion. A morality is generally agreed upon by the majority, but it is guided by both instinct and practicality. A popular opinion would be something like "the Backstreet Boys are awesome!".

and to stay true to the ultimate truth of his worldview, that there is no ultimate rule maker and so human beings are free to create our own morals as we please.

That is not the worldview of anyone I am aware of, let alone atheists (not that I am one to begin with).

What if this man decided to slaughter your loved ones AND he managed to get away with it? Would you not crave justice? and if so, why? Wouldn't that be inconsistent with your worldview?

Again, I would not need the help of the gods to decide right from wrong, or to judge things, or to feel things. It seems that you keep assuming I don't think morality exists at all without the help of the gods--this is your view, not mine.

Here's a second problem. If our sense of morality has evolved over time and human beings are nothing more than highly evolved animals, then our moral attitudes are just instincts, would you agree?

The common sense of morality as has evolved over the past few thousands of years is derived from, but definitely not the same as, our human instincts towards morality. The instincts evolved in the biological (as opposed to sociological) sense out of sheer necessity because we are social creatures and live in groups.

Another way of looking at it is like this. If our moral attitudes are just instincts then whenever two instincts are in conflict, the stronger of the two should win, but often this is not the case. In reality our stronger instinct may well be to run away and get safe and to not help the stranger who is drowning, but this third thing will tell us that we really ought to help.

As I stated above, moral attitudes are not just instincts, but even if they were which instinct would win is a more complicated matter than you imply.

and a third way of looking at it is like this. If these instincts for moral behaviour have evolved with us, then we'd expect to find some instincts that we can call "good" and some we'd call "bad".

What!? No. Who divides their instincts into 'good' and 'bad' categories? Why would anyone do that?

Why is it, then, that sometimes we feel we ought to supress the "good" instinct, for example, in cases of euphanasia,

You mean euthanasia?

or when a soldier goes to war. There is a third thing at play instructing and directing our instincts, and this I'd call our conscience. The thing inside of us that tells us which instinct to follow and which instinct to supress can not itself be one of the instincts. The moral law is the sheet music, our conscience is our ability to read that sheet music, our instincts are merely the keys.

The conscience does exist, and it what Freud called the superego. What's the relevance though?

And a third problem is justice. In your view what would be the fate of all criminals, cheats and law breakers, whos crimes go unnoticed or unpunished? What happens to all the people that have done you wrong in your lifetime? Will there not be an ultimate justice for all mankind to balance the scales once and for all? If not, what does that say? If you can commit crimes but get away with it then you're free to do so?

Do I believe there is an ultimate 'justice' to the universe? No. That's human wishful thinking. Life is not fair in any human sense, nor is there any reason to think it should be.

I assume you would consider a culture that follows Sharia law "worse" than your own opinion of how a culture should behave. Or for a more obvious example; is a christian culture better than a nazi culture, or a civilised culture better than a savage culture?

I believe that some cultures are more evolved in some aspects than others, yes. As I said previously. And the Nazi culture was a Christian culture, remember? Just not the same one as yours. I hope.

Now, again, I assume you would agree that some cultures can be morally "better" than others, as I do, but here's the thing, the moment you do this you are also assuming a standard on which to differentiate between better and worse. But the standard that measures two things can not be one of the two things themselves. right? If I had an idea of what New York is like, and you had an idea of what New York is like, neither of our ideas could be any truer or less true than the other unless there actually existed a real New York to compare against. So as societies morally progress they must be morally progressing towards a real state of absolute goodness. Otherwise the terms "better" and "worse" become totally meaningless.

Some cultures are less evolved in some aspects IMO, yes. Which is not the same concept as the actions of individual people conforming to any sort of morality or not.

But if you'll recall I brought up the example of Sharia law because they believe they are following the absolute moral standard of God, which is a different morality than others who believe the same thing. You did not address this important point--if God applies a different standard to different people, it is no longer an absolute standard.

C.S.Lewis - Mere Christianity [book 1 starts in part 2 - 6 mins 28 secs, and ends in part 8 - 1 min 55secs]

I'll try to read that today, and I'll give you one to read in return. It doesn't claim to have all the answers, and I think you'd find it interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all

 

[worrywort]

ok, just to clear up something, I probably didn't explain myself well enough, but yes I wholeheartedly agree that even if we had never read one word of any religious book you and I would still instinctively know the difference between right and wrong and would be able to make moral judgments without even thinking about God. In that sense, yes, I fully agree that we don't need God to make moral judgments. But that's not the point I'm trying to make. Let me give you the syllogistic form of the moral argument for Gods existence;

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore God exists

So the basic point I'm trying to prove is that objective moral values exist. By objective I mean that the holocaust was wrong even though the nazi's thought it was right, and it would remain wrong even if the nazi's had succeeded in brainwashing the entire human race. By objective I mean that torturing babies for fun or raping 4 year old girls is wrong, and will always be wrong for everybody at all times. By objective I mean, when you say that paedophilia is wrong, you don't mean that you personally happen to dislike it, you mean that you believe it should be wrong universally.

Basically I want to argue that moral values belong in the same category as maths, physics and metaphysics, i.e. before life had even emerged in the universe 1 + 1 still equaled 2 and E still equaled mc², ‘A’ still could not equal ‘non A’ and murder, rape and paedophilia were still wrong. Before life had even emerged on our planet, objective moral values existed. The reason I say this is because if they didn't exist prior to humanity then moral values become relative, and relativism, I believe, leads to absurdities.

If moral values did not exist prior to human life then there were no rules of social conduct set out for humans to oblige by. Just like my analogy of a board game with no rule maker, where it's the pieces or players that must decide which rules work best. [which I'm surprised you didn't agree with. I'd be interested to know why?] The rules of physics, metaphysics and mathematics would have already been there for early humans to discover, so that when a human proclaimed that 1 + 1 indeed equaled 2 his statement would have been true as it corresponded with reality. But when a human proclaimed that we ought not murder innocent people, you could not say that his statement was true in the same sense, only that it may be true for him but could just as easily be false for others. If there were no pre-existing moral values then no matter how you say our sense of morality evolved it will always remain a purely human construction and anything that is constructed by humans can be deconstructed. 2 + 2 could never equal 5 but it would be possible for rape to become the right thing to do if human evolution happens to incline that way.

If God does not exist then the terms "right" and "wrong" lose all their meaning. To say that a certain behaviour is "wrong" is to say that you believe it to be unbeneficial to humanity, that it is a breach of social agreements and that it is a hindrance to the survival of their genes but any deeper meaning than that would be illusory. Which means our accompanying desires for vengeance and justice would also be illusory.

one quick final point before I babble on too much - you could say that the ultimate "good" is that which benefits humanity the most, but what makes you think that we should assign human beings with the highest value? If everything on this planet, from humans to animals to rocks and trees, are merely different arrangements of atoms, why should we think humans are more worthy than any other arrangement? Have you not just had to make an objective moral judgement before offering an explanation that denies objective moral values exist.

But if you'll recall I brought up the example of Sharia law because they believe they are following the absolute moral standard of God, which is a different morality than others who believe the same thing. You did not address this important point--if God applies a different standard to different people, it is no longer an absolute standard.

God doesn't apply different standards to different people. God applies the same standard but different people interpret it in different ways.

 

[NathanielWingatePeaslee]

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore God exists

Number one is an assumption, and even if it weren't the conclusion if flawed reasoning. Getting boring now.

So the basic point I'm trying to prove is that objective moral values exist. By objective I mean that the holocaust was wrong even though the nazi's thought it was right, and it would remain wrong even if the nazi's had succeeded in brainwashing the entire human race. By objective I mean that torturing babies for fun or raping 4 year old girls is wrong, and will always be wrong for everybody at all times. By objective I mean, when you say that paedophilia is wrong, you don't mean that you personally happen to dislike it, you mean that you believe it should be wrong universally.

If objective moral values exist, then what's the standard measure? Who decides what they are? We've already established it's not all covered by the bible (and what is covered is not always consistent, and even if it were it's not the only religious book). What I think should be wrong universally is irrelevant, unless I am the standard measure. Does that mean I'm God?

Basically I want to argue that moral values belong in the same category as maths, physics and metaphysics, i.e. before life had even emerged in the universe 1 + 1 still equaled 2 and E still equaled mc², ‘A’ still could not equal ‘non A’ and murder, rape and paedophilia were still wrong. Before life had even emerged on our planet, objective moral values existed. The reason I say this is because if they didn't exist prior to humanity then moral values become relative, and relativism, I believe, leads to absurdities.

Moral values are the product of sentient beings, so your argument only works with the assumption of the existence of God to begin with. Circular arguments tire me.

If moral values did not exist prior to human life then there were no rules of social conduct set out for humans to oblige by.

Before there was human life there was obviously no need for rules for humans.

But when a human proclaimed that we ought not murder innocent people

When a human proclaimed we ought not to murder innocent people he was using common sense, and didn't like the idea of he or his loved ones getting killed.

pre-existing moral values then no matter how you say our sense of morality evolved it will always remain a purely human construction and anything that is constructed by humans can be deconstructed.

A construct in the sociological sense isn't backed up by the instincts and practicality that human moral values are, but otherwise, sure.

would be possible for rape to become the right thing to do if human evolution happens to incline that way.

Rape is a reproductive norm for a lot of species. If humans weren't as humans are, who knows? That's a pointless, open-ended hypothetical.

If God does not exist then the terms "right" and "wrong" lose all their meaning.

To you maybe. I have a pretty strong sense of right and wrong without need for any gods, as I thought I already made clear.

To say that a certain behaviour is "wrong" is to say that you believe it to be unbeneficial to humanity, that it is a breach of social agreements and that it is a hindrance to the survival of their genes but any deeper meaning than that would be illusory.

Deeper meanings are often illusory. Humans are easily fooled and confused.

Which means our accompanying desires for vengeance and justice would also be illusory.

Desires are always real.

one quick final point before I babble on too much - you could say that the ultimate "good" is that which benefits humanity the most, but what makes you think that we should assign human beings with the highest value?

That which benefits people the most is the general idea with morality, yes. Humans tend to assign ourselves the highest value because we are human, naturally. It's a simple matter of self interest.

why should we think humans are more worthy than any other arrangement?

I often don't.

Have you not just had to make an objective moral judgement before offering an explanation that denies objective moral values exist.

Nope!

God doesn't apply different standards to different people. God applies the same standard but different people interpret it in different ways.

So is there only one religious book that's correct? Is there only one interpretation of that book that is correct? Is it...yours? Supplying humanity with a moral standard is useless if it's so easy to misinterpret. Wars have been fought over exactly that.

 

[Lea]

You don't need any rules, you just need love. Love is unity, nonlove is division. Then there will be millions of different rules & people fighting over which ones are right. They make it complicated because they don't have love. In my opinion love is God (not just some man on the sky!!), and love is belief. You just need a tiny bit of that to get it all right.

 

[worrywort]

.

Ok fair enough, I don't think we're going to get much further, the last 4 or 5 posts we've both stated the exact same points and neither of us is convincing the other, but that's fine. I still don't think you've quite understood the point I'm making but then who knows, maybe I haven't understood your point either. But you've given me a lot to think about so I'll probably chew on some of it over the coming weeks. It was fun talking to you!

 

[Klaus]

Genocides have been committed by far more religious regimes than atheistic ones--check your history books. This is for the simple reason than regimes have a tendency to commit genocide now and then, and most regimes have not been atheistic ones.

Nathaniel, atheism killed 100 million people only at the XX century. See the “Black Book of Communism”. That is by far the record for all human history.

The bible is pretty inconsistent about incest if you actually read it, and doesn't even mention pedophilia.

Pedophilia: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:10)

Incest:
Leviticus 18:6
“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord.
1 Corinthians 5:1
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife."

Karl Marx was a beautiful person but an unrealistic idealist. Once he saw what people were doing with his ideas, he said (paraphrasing) “If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist”.

Karl Marx was a “good” person?

Karl Marx was a man without any kind of morality. Even the anarchist Bakunin said that he was a man without any kind of respect for others or thuth. 3 of his children committed suicide and her wife had a miserable life because of him. Mass media always says good things about Che Guevara and Fidel Castro too and that’s a shame. Marx created the concept that christian morality makes people weak. And this kind of mentality allowed mass murders during all XX century. From China to Cuba and many others.

Adolf Hitler very much believed in God, both publicly and privately. For political purposes, he was a friend to many churches and what he really wanted to do was create his own church preaching an 'Aryan' version of Christianity.

Adolf Hitler was big fan of German Neo-paganism (things like asatru, german mysticism and occultism), the Thule Society was the key and only “church” for Hitler. Adolf Hitler, actually, hated Christianity.

He stated:
“The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”
- Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 51

There is nothing christian about Nazism.

While under communistic regimes, religion was suppressed. Did this make the population atheistic? Crap no. If the government told you to stop believing in God, would you? Most of the population was and is religious, just like the rest of the world. Killing female children, sadly, is a cultural thing and not relevant to religion or atheism.

No, people don’t become atheist with communist regimes. But their sons and grand children do.
Check this site: List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Top Ten are communist regimes or formers, and non religious countries.

Can you make a link between suicide rates and atheism?

And killing female children is not an old cultural thing. It’s brand new! It started together with the China’s government policy of only giving public healthcare, schools and University to one child. So when they have another one, they kill the former child. But they only do that if the former kid is a female. And why is that?

Because there a huge surplus of males in China, and families that have daughters pay a lot of money to families that have boys for them to marry with their “females”.
And it is relevant to religion too, because this trend has started on the XX century and I really doubt that they would kill their children in cold blood and throw the child’s body at the sidewalk if they hadn't been brainwashed with communism and atheism.

Can you imagine people killing their children and laying down the bodies at the sidewalk of any american city (christians) at cold blood and with people passing by not giving a damn about it?

 

[NathanielWingatePeaslee]

Nathaniel, atheism killed 100 million people only at the XX century. See the “Black Book of Communism”. That is by far the record for all human history.

Check your source. It's not held to be historically accurate by most. Even if it were, so what? Your claim that 'atheism' killed 100 million is patently false--leaders had those people killed, not atheism itself. In any event that number is still far less than those killed by people who were religious for all of human history. The numbers just don't compare. And as I said before, it's simply for the reason that most political leaders are religious--leaders and regimes kill people.

Pedophilia: "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:10)

Okay, don't be bad to kids. This statement only pertains to pedophilia if you go in already believing that pedophilia is a bad thing. If you believed having them eat vegetables was a bad thing, it could mean "don't feed them vegetables". You waste my time. The disturbing part is the qualification of specifically the kids that 'believe in me', implying that being bad to kids who don't is either okay or doesn't matter.

Incest:
Leviticus 18:6
“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord.
1 Corinthians 5:1
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife."

I didn't say the bible doesn't mention incest. I said it was inconsistent. You can look up the verses for yourself or just close your eyes to it. I'm not really caring which.

Karl Marx was a “good” person?

Karl Marx was a man without any kind of morality.

Opinion.

Even the anarchist Bakunin said that he was a man without any kind of respect for others or thuth.

Why would the opinion of an anarchist be especially important to me? I am not an anarchist.

3 of his children committed suicide and her wife had a miserable life because of him.

That is unfortunate but also irrelevant and proves nothing. Some atheists have tragic personal lives just as some religious people do. His ideals were beautiful, and you would know this if you had read his works. His ideals, as I said, were also impractical.

Marx created the concept that christian morality makes people weak.

He was hardly the first person to decide that religion is bad for people. What of it, anyway?

And this kind of mentality allowed mass murders during all XX century. From China to Cuba and many others.

The mass murders were committed by those in power, for their own ends, as always, be they atheist or religious. Some justify their murders with twisted Darwinism, some with twisted Christianity. This is a function of leaders and regimes, not religion. Again. And as I already said, Marx hated what people did with his ideas.

Adolf Hitler was big fan of German Neo-paganism (things like asatru, german mysticism and occultism), the Thule Society was the key and only “church” for Hitler.

Evidence points to the Neo-paganism thing being more for political reasons than personal, but how would believing in more gods make him an atheist anyway?

Adolf Hitler, actually, hated Christianity.
He stated:
“The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”
- Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 51

There is nothing christian about Nazism.

Check your source. The only alleged anti-Christian statements from Hitler come from an edited translation of that particular book from the German original, which lacked the anti-Christian statements.

The Top Ten are communist regimes or formers, and non religious countries.

This statement is simply false. Perhaps you should read up on those top ten again.

Can you make a link between suicide rates and atheism?

I can say this: communism doesn't and didn't work and generally made a mess of things where people tried it. Perhaps most obviously in the poverty in countries belonging to the former Soviet union. It would be much easier to find a link between suicide and poverty. Communism is not atheism though, even if it were practiced as Marx wanted it to be, which it wasn't.

And killing female children is not an old cultural thing. It’s brand new! It started together with the China’s government policy of only giving public healthcare, schools and University to one child. So when they have another one, they kill the former child. But they only do that if the former kid is a female. And why is that?

Because there a huge surplus of males in China, and families that have daughters pay a lot of money to families that have boys for them to marry with their “females”.

I never said it was old, and I am familiar with the reasons, thanks.

And it is relevant to religion too, because this trend has started on the XX century and I really doubt that they would kill their children in cold blood and throw the child’s body at the sidewalk if they hadn't been brainwashed with communism and atheism.

Um, once again most people in China are religious. This is getting really old. Look it up.

Can you imagine people killing their children and laying down the bodies at the sidewalk of any american city (christians) at cold blood and with people passing by not giving a damn about it?

I can imagine people in America doing all sorts of rotten things. Because they do, just like people everywhere else.

Your arguments are tiresome.

Bored now.

 

[AGR]

Check this site: List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Top Ten are communist regimes or formers, and non religious countries.

Can you make a link between suicide rates and atheism?

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Check out the top of the list,Can you make a link between homicide rates and religion?

I can do the same thing,but it doesnt really prove that anything is related,thas just assuming.

 

[Klaus]

Check your source. It's not held to be historically accurate by most. Even if it were, so what? Your claim that 'atheism' killed 100 million is patently false--leaders had those people killed, not atheism itself. In any event that number is still far less than those killed by people who were religious for all of human history. The numbers just don't compare. And as I said before, it's simply for the reason that most political leaders are religious--leaders and regimes kill people.

Nathaniel, you can't deny that communist regimes killed 100 million at the XX century and that their leaders were atheist. The argument that other "christian regimes" killed too is true. But no other ever achieved 100 million deaths.
The book I talked about it is very historically accurate. And you can relly on other sources as well to check those genocide numbers.
When human kind killed 100 million?
Which and when a "christian regime" killed like that?

Okay, don't be bad to kids. This statement only pertains to pedophilia if you go in already believing that pedophilia is a bad thing. If you believed having them eat vegetables was a bad thing, it could mean "don't feed them vegetables". You waste my time. The disturbing part is the qualification of specifically the kids that 'believe in me', implying that being bad to kids who don't is either okay or doesn't matter.

I didn't say the bible doesn't mention incest. I said it was inconsistent. You can look up the verses for yourself or just close your eyes to it. I'm not really caring which.

The Bible and the Vatican are opposed to incest and pedophilia.
Where in the the bible there is a single versicule that argues that is ok to do incest or pedophilia? It's not inconsistent. The Bible says it is wrong and I've put the the quotes from the bible here, now show me the quotes pro incest and pedophilia.

Why would the opinion of an anarchist be especially important to me? I am not an anarchist.

That is unfortunate but also irrelevant and proves nothing. Some atheists have tra[/I]gic personal lives just as some religious people do. His ideals were beautiful, and you would know this if you had read his works. His ideals, as I said, were also impractical.

He was hardly the first person to decide that religion is bad for people. What of it, anyway?

Yeah, the ideals are beautiful, the only problem is that to put their ideas working, they have to kill people at the process.
And there is where the problem begins. I've already heard many people comparing saints like Mother Teresa to Che Guevara, Fidel, Trotsky, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, PolPot and I think it's crazy.
How can you compare a person that would give his life to protect you to people that would take your life because of a sick dream of materialistic equality?

The mass murders were committed by those in power, for their own ends, as always, be they atheist or religious. Some justify their murders with twisted Darwinism, some with twisted Christianity. This is a function of leaders and regimes, not religion. Again. And as I already said, Marx hated what people did with his ideas.

How is that?
Karl Marx died in 1883, before the existence of all communist countries.
How could Marx hate what people did with his ideas if the ideas had not yet been put in practise?

Yeah, all regimes killed, but no other one achieved the atheist success at the art of killing millions. And why is that?
Because the "marxist morality" lies at : "do what the f... you need to the good of the "cause", don't feel pity of anyone, because this a weakness! Christians are weak, we are the strong ones!"

Evidence points to the Neo-paganism thing being more for political reasons than personal, but how would believing in more gods make him an atheist anyway?

You said that he was a christian.

Paganism is mysticism, it's similar to the beliefs to horoscope or to the "Sun God". To christians, muslins and jews a pagan is an atheist.

Check your source. The only alleged anti-Christian statements from Hitler come from an edited translation of that particular book from the German original, which lacked the anti-Christian statements.

"When one looks at the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler and compares them to the teacher of universal love, Jesus of Nazareth, one might come to the immediate conclusion that the notion that Hitler was a Christian is absurd".
Kevin Davids

This statement is simply false. Perhaps you should read up on those top ten again.


I can say this: communism doesn't and didn't work and generally made a mess of things where people tried it. Perhaps most obviously in the poverty in countries belonging to the former Soviet union. It would be much easier to find a link between suicide and poverty. Communism is not atheism though, even if it were practiced as Marx wanted it to be, which it wasn't.

Suicide rates at latin America are very low, and they are even poorer than people from former communist countries. The only difference is that they have faith.

Um, once again most people in China are religious. This is getting really old. Look it up.

If they are religious how can they kill their children?
What kind of religion is that?
You see paganism and mysticism as religions, and they are not.

I can imagine people in America doing all sorts of rotten things. Because they do, just like people everywhere else.

No, if people at the USA kill their children it will be a shock to society and the parents would be arrested, and maybe killed by death penalty.
In China it's ok to kill your children.
Can you see the difference between the "pagan/atheist" morality and the religious morality?

Your arguments are tiresome.

Bored now.

You don't need to answer me.
Be free to do what you want.

 

[LadyWench]

If you ask this question of 100 different atheists, I expect you will get 100 different answers. That is because, to an atheist, (like NathanielWingatePeaslee said) life is whatever you make of it

Contrary to what many religious think, atheists don't look at life as meaningless or without purpose; far from it. We believe that this is the only life we will ever have, so we'd better make the most of it. Each life is very precious to an us it is something that is absolutely irreplaceable, it doesn't last forever, and there are no second chances. Sure, we could just kill ourselves and be done with it, but why? We're here, so we might as well see what we can make of the experience while we have it!

but Christians are going through their whole lives simply waiting for death, so that they can get to a promised afterlife So to us, living a life in hopes of getting to a mythical world seems like a life wasted.

This is easily one of the best posts I've seen on this forum. Very moving.

 

[davidburke]

This is easily one of the best posts I've seen on this forum. Very moving.

thank you

 

[LadyWench]

thank you

You're welcome.

 

[AGR]

Paganism is mysticism, it's similar to the beliefs to horoscope or to the "Sun God". To christians, muslins and jews a pagan is an atheist..

doesnt really matter what they think it is,what matters its what really is,twisting something doesnt make it true,doubt you were an atheist,you dont even know what that means.

Suicide rates at latin America are very low, and they are even poorer than people from former communist countries. The only difference is that they have faith. ..

seems like they dont have a problem with homicide though,only in my home country,largest number of Catholics in a country mind you, theres like 50.000 something homicides per year and as I said earlier this is not really related with atheism or religion,you are linking without any evidence.

If they are religious how can they kill their children?
What kind of religion is that?
You see paganism and mysticism as religions, and they are not.

its really hard to debate with someone who twists reality,I dont know its like a defence mechanism,like some people say x is to complex therefore would have to have a creator,yet you point out that using their own logic, a creator would have to be much more complex,its like I can use this argument,but when it comes to my beliefs its not valid.

 

[groovy]

Eerie whispers
trapped beneath my pillow
won't let me sleep
your memories

and I know you're in this room
I'm sure I heard you sigh
Floating in between
where our worlds collide

scares the hell out of me
and the end is all I can see
and it scares the hell out of me
and the end is all I can see

and I know the moment's near
and there's nothing you can do
look through a faithless eye
are you afraid to die?

it scares the hell out of me
and the end is all I can see
and it scares the hell out of me
and the end is all I can see

It scares the hell out of me
and the end is all I can see
and it scares the hell out of me
and the end is all I can see

 

[lunarla]

Life can still be about persistence, hope, love, dreams, seeking freedom and peace, without inserting the claim that a god made all of this to be.

But if you and some other people can't see it as such without believing in a god, then I'm truly glad that having some faith makes it possible for you to see the good.

 

[mikebird]

Euthanasia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/24/Megadeth-Youthanasia.jpg/220px-Megadeth-Youthanasia.jpg