Atheist Atrocities and a Confusion of Causes

[hensatri]

I will grant that deference to authority is indeed a difference between almost all instances of theism and atheism... but this isn't what is required to commit atrocities.

You don’t think that this is an important distinction? Obviously no one single thing is enough to get you to an atrocity, it takes multiple things. My case, through this entire post, has been that many religions provide everything you need to go from good person to wicked act. Deference to authority, source of authority, and commandment. All right there. Atheism does not, in any variation I have ever seen, offer any such thing. Systems that do offer that package deal are either A: Explicitly religious (and therefore theistic) or B; something that might not be theistic, but is almost indistinguishable from being Religious (Stalinist Communism).

I see no reason to divorce subsets of naturalism from atheism but not do the same with subsets of religion from theism.

You can keep Scientific Naturalism with Atheism if you like. I don’t quite agree that Atheism is to Scientific Naturalism as Theism is to Christianity. Close, but with one vital part missing. The Atheism>scientific naturalism system has no element of authority or deference to it intrinsic in the system. I have spoken earlier in this same thread that wicked people will do wicked things more or less independently of their world view, but that what we should be interested in there is the kind of world view that will get otherwise good people to do wicked things. You need that authority element to make that happen. Atheism simply doesn’t have that. Meanwhile authority of an absolute nature is intrinsic to the Theism>Christianity side of that comparison.

To bring it back to simple examples, there have been good people who stoned a child, with a heavy heart, who would not have if they didn’t feel it to be their religious duty. There has never been a person who ethnically cleansed the gene pool because, despite their disdain for the task, they felt it was their non-religious duty.

[Dave In Canada]

Read my response again Dave. I supplied documentation in the form of Peter, your fellow atheist partner in crime! In this very thread.

So one person speaks for all atheists?

Your silly premise can work both ways.

I hope you don't mind that I will just accept Fred Phelps as simply stating what every Christian (including you) actually thinks!

[finder]

So one person speaks for all atheists?

Your silly premise can work both ways.

I hope you don't mind that I will just accept Fred Phelps as simply stating what every Christian (including you) actually thinks!

I really don't mind what you accept, not near as much as you seem to mind what I do anyway. I just present the truth as I see it.

Is it your opinion that human empathy and compassion are not a by product of the continued progression of the evolution of our species?

[Dave In Canada]

I really don't mind what you accept, not near as much as you seem to mind what I do anyway. I just present the truth as I see it.

Is it your opinion that human empathy and compassion are not a by product of the continued progression of the evolution of our species?

I find the way that you make declarations as some sort of truth is erroneous at best. It is a common mistake that you make by taking what one person states as being representative of how a group may think. It's complete crap and you know it.

If you really want to discuss the truth as you see it, is it not your opinion that if you were born into a muslim family in Kabul that you would worship Allah?

[finder]

By Finder: Is it your opinion that human empathy and compassion are not a by product of the continued progression of the evolution of our species?

I find the way that you make declarations as some sort of truth is erroneous at best. It is a common mistake that you make by taking what one person states as being representative of how a group may think. It's complete crap and you know it.

Can you answer the question?

[Dave In Canada]

Yes I can.

I believe that as we progress as a species our empathy and compassion has grown to an extent as well.

I edited my post. Can you answer my question?

[LetThereBe]

To bring it back to simple examples, there have been good people who stoned a child, with a heavy heart, who would not have if they didn’t feel it to be their religious duty. There has never been a person who ethnically cleansed the gene pool because, despite their disdain for the task, they felt it was their non-religious duty.

Can you prove this?
You think every Nazi concentration camp guard was either thrilled to be killing Jews or was a religious zealot?
Religious authority is certainly not the only kind that can be used to justify atrocity. Deference to the state is just as dangerous.

I would agree that ANY world view which accepts authority without question or thought is more likely to be involved in atrocities. This isn't restricted to theism nor even normally the case within theism. Just as most people don't take a naturalistic world view to the logical extreme of being a sociopath, most religious don't take their faith to the extreme where they completely ignore cultural or social norms.

[Ken Carman]

Can you prove this?
You think every Nazi concentration camp guard was either thrilled to be killing Jews or was a religious zealot?
Religious authority is certainly not the only kind that can be used to justify atrocity. Deference to the state is just as dangerous.

I would agree that ANY world view which accepts authority without question or thought is more likely to be involved in atrocities. This isn't restricted to theism nor even normally the case within theism. Just as most people don't take a naturalistic world view to the logical extreme of being a sociopath, most religious don't take their faith to the extreme where they completely ignore cultural or social norms.

Not sure Nazi would be the best example here, since even their belt buckles said, "Gott mit uns." (God is with us.) Hitler was Catholic, though rather odd Catholic, perverse, and certainly not devote except to his own off version of fascism. Perhaps those who willingly followed the orders of Stalin, Lenin, since atheism was a stated position... in deference to Marx. Of course the government they formed wasn't all that "Marx-ian," or even atheistic. In comparison the atheism supported by Marx was perverted by those who called themselves "Communists," just like theism has been perverted over the years under various flavors. Even the focus is off: many act as if that was the main focus of Marx in his books, rather than economics and his pipe dream powerless power structure.

In the end, I suppose, it proves no matter what stand you take, how hold or brilliant the person you follow was, humans will go out of their way to misinterpret what was said, put words in the mouth that may never have been spoken, claim unproven intent... and generally muck all it up for their own purposes. The sad thing is that many don't even know they're doing it, or that they've been led astray.

I kind of like the quote from the end of Dogma, that essentially it's better to "have a good idea." Being absolute about such things seems to almost always end up bad, even evil.

[finder]

Yes I can.

I believe that as we progress as a species our empathy and compassion has grown to an extent as well.

I edited my post. Can you answer my question?

I believe if I was born in Kabul to a Muslim family I would believe in God. Would I call him "Allah"? I suppose if that's the language I spoke. Would I scrutinize Islam? You bet, the same way I have done with the different denominations of Christianity, Mormonism, and secular teachings of the west.

By "progress" do you mean the traditional understanding that evolution enhances species by producing more complex versions from simpler ones causing developments that lead to a better survival rate?

[Questatement]

Some Atheists like to say that Atheism is hardly and "ism" at all. Unlike Theism, Communism, Authoritarianism, Pacifism, Capitalism, or Totalitarianism, Atheism doesn’t include any positive or instructional claims. All other "isms" tell you something about the way things ought to be, but all Atheism indicates is disbelief in a God.

Is disbelief in God really all that atheism is? Are you (an atheist?) not making a positive statement/argument in defense of atheism here? If so, is it not motivated by a desire to support atheism by placing it in a positive light?

Me thinks that you do not even understand your own dearly held position.

[Jack]

Is disbelief in God really all that atheism is?

Yes. That makes the rest of your questions irrelevant.

[hensatri]

Is disbelief in God really all that atheism is? Are you (an atheist?) not making a positive statement/argument in defense of atheism here? If so, is it not motivated by a desire to support atheism by placing it in a positive light?

Me thinks that you do not even understand your own dearly held position.

Theism= Belief in a personal God.

Atheism= (literally) Not Theism

Ergo

Atheism= No belief in a personal God.

Anything else you inject into Atheism is your misunderstanding.


Now that said, I am a Humanist, and a scientific naturalist, and a democrat, and a determinist. Those are my positive views that I happily discuss and defend, but none of those things are Atheism.