The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"Sin is falling short of perfection.
Nobody is perfect.
So all, to some degree are fallen."
Just perfect, you summarized exactly what religion does to people.
Makes them feel guilty of not being perfect, and guilty people do not question god but submit and obey like good slaves and servants.
They do so, so they they get a chance at redemption.
"how do we obtain redemption?"
Just nailed it.
"So I have some sympathy for your view, but your view does not prove God is evil."
It does, you are just in denial of what is written in the bible thus you are picking and choosing what you like to supplement your denial of the obvious.
"I have some sympathy for your" desperate attempt to save god from being seen as evil by proving that his book is flawed and filled with lies.
"The way I think of it is:
Sin is falling short of perfection.
Nobody is perfect.
So all, to some degree are fallen."
This automatically makes everyone "sinners", no matter what they do. There is no point in that, other than to make people feel indebted. It's a mind trap.
Actually, it is a twist(and a bad one) of the argumentum ad consequentiam. It is an attempt to appeal to what many religious people actually seem to perceive is the result or consequence of atheism. Many religious sects claim that their faith or religion is what gives life meaning and/or value, hence without it life is cheap and meaningless. They view atheism as a nihilistic framework which allows the devaluation of life so wholesale atrocities can be committed without the normal moral guilt associated with such action. The problem, as it were, is that there is no reason to accept their premise.
1. There is no real evidence that atheism leads to murder.
2. There is no real evidence that theism stops people from committing atrocities.
3. There is some real evidence that theists value life even less than atheists.
So, it is a fallacy.
There is no evidence that either theism, or atheism stops people from committing atrocities.
I think it is a reliable belief that theists at least imply that atheists are bad people. That is their bigotry. They overlook that moral standards are cultural, and no specific worldview has a monopoly on moral standards. But it isn't right or productive for atheists to counter their bigotry towards you, with your own bigotry towards them.
Hold on a second, we need to go over a few things. While it is true that Atheism cannot really stop or even promote atrocities, having no real enforceable intrinsic morality, it isn't quite the same as religions. Religions do not exist separate from their holy texts, so carry ideological baggage and moral baggage, at times the baggage is from centuries ago. While some religious people will be able to separate the baggage from the religion, some quite literally adopt that baggage as if it were from on high, which is why there are some preachers even today that support the stoning of homosexuals. So, no. While no worldview may actually have a monopoly on morality, there is one that claims to have that monopoly, and that does make quite a startling difference.
Is it always bad? No, I don't think anyone has ever met a violently militant Jainist, nor do I think it even possible. But many religions do have far less healthy moral examples imbedded in their texts, and that needs to be recognized as well. Atheism, at its very basic core, has no required beliefs about morality, while religions are often fully-stocked with such baggage. I find this often has both positive and negative effects. It isn't very regular for me to see the more modern protestant sects taking hardline stances on things like birth control or homosexuality, so it seems more emphasis was placed on these in the catholic tradition, to the point that it was only recently that they have changed their stance on protection in aids-riddled Africa.
I think that religion can provide much motivation that atheism can't, both good and bad. It is a mixed bag, and pointing out the bad and pushing against it is only bigoted if you consider constructive criticism bigoted. We should push back against people that condone violence, same with those faith healers that scam money off the poor and sick, and so should you. The fact is, often we atheists are the only ones really voicing our opposition, and silence from religious moderates is nearly deafening.
If you want us to change our opinion of you, give us a reason to. I have routinely destroyed other atheists publicly, here and elsewhere, when they said something I disagreed with about the religious. I called another atheist a nazi for talking about putting Christians in reeducation camps, and so did other atheists en mass. Whereas when Christians say similar things about atheists, those that bother to comment agree, and those that disagree don't even bother to condemn it. We only ever hear from the vocal minority of your side that believes we are either satanists, or self-denying theists, and attack us with verses out of a book written by people so ignorant they thought striped sticks would encourage striped sheep.
So, while we are prejudiced, it isn't without cause. Every other group to ever fight against prejudices had to do so by destroying them through action, and so have atheists for the most part. Meanwhile, it would seem religious people seem to think they should be immune to our prejudice merely because they mysteriously somehow deserve the benefit of the doubt. No, if they want people to change their perception of them, they will have to work for it just like everyone else, ever.
Welcome to reality, have a nice day.
Yes, I agree with you on that...I've always said that if someone lives a good life, it dosen't matter religion, or no religion, belief or no belief. My point is that a person DOES NOT NEED GOD OR RELIGION TO TELL THEM WHAT IS RIGHT, JUST, AND MORAL. You see you did something that hurt someone, common sense, you don't do it again...God dosen't need to tell you what common sense should.
God doesn't really discriminate: all humans require moral standards. It is part of the way we are created. So every society has moral standards regardless of the dominant religion.
I don't know about common sense. Evolution and natural selection indicates survival of the fittest and my best approach would be to kill you so I don't have to compete with you over what I need. We all compete with each other, it is only through social constructs that we accept one another. The fact that we don't kill our competition has to do with learned behaviour: the laws of our (current) society. I wouldn't call that common sense. In fact, it isn't sense that is common at all, it's just as primitive to think it comes natural and hasn't evolved over hundreds if not thousands of years, as it is to think god gave it to you.
I don't buy your apparently Lockian view. Social construct?
Humans are social animals. Humans never invented some social construct.
The very media by which you convey your opinion is a construct. A social construct, so that we can talk to each other and convey opinions. Without it I wouldn't even know you had an opinion.
You often demand evidence or references when others make claims. But you never seem interested in backing up your own claims.
"Humans never invented some social construct."
Apart from your own wishful thinking, where did you get this notion?
Please, provide us with anything to back up this claim?
Ok I take that back. Silly me. I thought you were talking about the Lockian "social Contract"
This thread about all the evil theist do apparently to prove theists are evil could be an attempt at creating some social construct.
Of course we have many atrocities happening in the world for example in the mid east. But what about those who attempt to stop such atrocities? What if research showed that 50 -75% of those coming back from fighting terrorism in body bags, or suffering post traumatic stress identified as theists? And only .2% coming back in a similar fashion were atheist? What would your opinion be then?
The reality is the vast majority of theists do not condone terrorism. Yet you want to paint all theists in a bad light. Your social construct looks like bigotry.
I believe atheists have been treated badly by some theists. I have been treated badly by some theists too, not to mention by some atheists as well. It doesn't mean they are *all* like that. You have been attempting to paint a specific group of people in a bad light based on selecting the worst of the bunch, and painting them all in the same way. If Ted Bundy was an atheist, would it be correct to say atheists are psychotic serial killers?
You really really don't seem to get it. Even though I have tried to explain over and over again.
"This thread about all the evil theist do apparently to prove theists are evil could be an attempt at creating some social construct."
"The reality is the vast majority of theists do not condone terrorism. Yet you want to paint all theists in a bad light. Your social construct looks like bigotry."
"It doesn't mean they are *all* like that. You have been attempting to paint a specific group of people in a bad light based on selecting the worst of the bunch, and painting them all in the same way. If Ted Bundy was an atheist, would it be correct to say atheists are psychotic serial killers?"
Again you make unfounded assumptions and spit on atheists in blind ignorance...
Nobody said "they are *all* like that".
I haven't been "attempting to paint a specific group of people in a bad light based on selecting the worst of the bunch".
What I condemn is Theism, not the people.
I may hang out specific Theists in the thread "The dark side of Theism", but nowhere do I state that all theists are "like that". That is your own bias that tricks you to interpret it that way, so you can spit some more at atheists.
By Darwins beard! The goddamn name of the thread EXPLAINS WHAT IT'S ABOUT. Theism has a dark side that many theists walk around and ignore or simply don't know about. But guess what, it's real. And people suffer and die because of it, every day.
Please. Stop reading what you want into everything and actually read the text as it is.
Humans naturally tend to socialize, societies tend to create constructs to support themselves, where is the problem with the natural progression from a social species to constructs created by that social species?
Nothing, now just finish with "these constructs set the rules on how we compete with each other so we aren't killing one another" and you'll complete my point.
Oho, but these constructs go far beyond simple rules of competition, they enforce adaptation through social pressure to mold societies. That is the very reason societies can 'evolve', and why different ones subject to different obstacles, evolve so differently.
We are talking about anthropology now, and anyone that can't understand what social constructs are will get lost in the conversation completely. I just have to wonder how anyone can question the existence of such constructs with a straight face...
Yeah, the claim that humans can't create social constructs is a rather odd claim.
Especially considering that we HAVE to use a social construct(language) to even talk about them...
And there is NO PROOF whatsoever that there is a God...you simply claim it !! You are now grabbing at straws...thats it, I'm done!!