Hi,i am a Jain who has recently discovered Atheism.I have some questions in my mind which are the reasons i do not call myself Atheist .I would hope to have a reasonable discussion.
1.What exactly is Atheism?-a disbelief in God or a lack of belief in God?
2.Are all Atheists completely against religion?
3.How do you separate historical self proclaimed Atheists like Hitler Stalin,Joseph Stalin and Mao.
4.Is exactly agnostic atheist any different from atheist?
5.If we agree that there is no god then where do our morals come from?
(if you have any questions on Jainism or Hinduism you can ask me)
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Just ask your question.
/e oh i see you did ask your questions with an edit. ok!
1.What exactly is Atheism?-a disbelief in God or a lack of belief in God?
The definition commonly used in the community is a lack of belief in God. If you want to argue against that definition, don't bother; we've heard it 100 times. We aren't interested.
2.Are all Atheists completely against religion?
Not in the slightest. In fact I work very closely with a Christian church (charity).
3.How do you separate historical self proclaimed Atheists like [Hitler, Stalin, and Mao].
Hitler professed to be Catholic ad nauseam. That being said, many people do nasty things; believers and unbelievers.
4.Is exactly agnostic atheist any different from atheist?
Agnostic atheist is a subset of atheist. It's members are atheists who are agnostic.
5.If we agree that there is no god then where do our morals come from?
From human beings, of course.
Hitler wasn't atheist nor Catholic. He was actually in an occult called VRIL SOCIETY. The guy didn't just 1 day wake up and say "we are the master race".
But the point is that the people who committed mass genocides were all atheists.I know that Hitler never un-baptized himself but there are several atheist who committed mass genocides than theists(eg: Stalin said that there is no god,The Life of Joseph Stalin,pg8-9;Mao) .The main point I think is that if there is no god then as Dennis Prager said how do we know that killing a person is bad or we have that feeling that if we kill a person then it is immoral. Fyodor Dostoyevsky in his book Crime and Punishment said-"If God is not, everything is permitted."
One does not have to look far to find religious people engaged in genocide. Just for openers:
North America (colonists)
Congo (Belgians )
Australia (British)
India (British)
Zulu kingdom (time of Shaka Zulu)
Peru (Spanish)
Armenians (Ottoman Empire)
In my views, you are a nihilist. can an atheist follow moral? yes they can. But let me elaborate.
from my perspective, an atheist can hold the equal values as nonatheist holds, but for different reasons. A religious man may hold the moral law to be sacred or divine teachings, whereas a man without religion may believe that " doiing good" is favorable to himself and all of humanity, though not a link to god. Therefore yes atheists are capable of reaching the same end. tho they might have different means to arrive at there conclusion. but here's my problem, atheists acknowledge no relation to god, which should lead to, love, hope, or obedience etc. to him/her, the absolute speculative atheist, the moral law is nothing.let me elaborate even more from an esoteric perspective.
an intellectathiest would find matter everywhere, but no causing or providing mind. his/her moral sense no equitable of will,no beauty of moral excellence, no conscience( inner voice/feeling) enacting justice into the unchanging law of right, literally no spiritual order or Providence, but only material fate and chance. his affections would find only limitless things to love, and atheists such as yourself, to you the dead who were loved and died last week, like a rainbow that had its moment last week after the rain, then just passed away.his/her soul flying thru vast inane, and just feeling a darkness.literal DARKNESS. the soul the conscious which at once upon a time was reason, conscience, would find no GOD!!, but a universe that is all DISORDER, no infinite, no logic, no conscience, and no heart. nothing to reverence(deep respect) to esteem, to love, to worship, to put faith in. that's why i say atheism is "nihilism". hopefully, you understood my views.
You're saying that God has ''moral excellence'' and ''higher conscience'', which are higher forms of love, hope, obedience and stuff. And because atheists don't believe in God, atheists don't have those attributes; thus atheists are nihilists.
You're committing the fallacy of begging the question. These attributes are not always on par with the concept of God, and they're cultural products in the first place. Why would material fate be the only thing that makes me moral? Why can't an atheist be, say, a humanitarian? What's more, suicide bombers thought they were doing the right thing--they thought they were commanded by their God, and they definitely weren't motivated by material fate. How ''morally excellent'' is that?
I can use your same logic to prove that those who don't believe in Harry Potter are nihilists. Ready?
1. Harry Potter novels are all about love, hope and wonder.
2. What? You don't believe in Harry Potter?
3. You are a nihilist who doesn't believe in love, hope, and wonder!
Nonsense, right? You see what I mean? You can arbitrarily assign a character/concept some attributes, and say that ''those who don't believe in this character/concept don't have these attributes''. And by doing so, you can virtually prove anything.
Religions have also been the cause of mass genocides. In fact, religions have been the worst.
Read the book of Joshua in the Bible, Old Testament. They tried, but could never truly exterminate the Canaanites.
The Great Spanish Inquisition.
The Holy Crusades.
The Hundred Years War.
What was that war about the roses and whatever?
Basically, virtually ALL wars and genocides were perpetrated due to religion. Stalin may have been an atheist, but his genocides were due to exterminating religious persons because they refused to worship him.
Hitler was a Catholic. In fact, you could not be a member of the Nazi military unless you were Christian. Hitler also said it was his godly duty to exterminate those he did not like. Not just the Jews, but also gypsys, homosexuals, etc., etc.
Mao, well, he was similar to Stalin.
You can look deeply into any war and find that ultimately, its cause was due to religion.
Even the Vietnam War was our religious beliefs in that we are better than the communists and must put a stop to their spread. Many say it is because of political beliefs. However, here in America, our politics are completely polluted with religious beliefs. In fact, America no longer has any true political beliefs. They are all religious.
However, I do have to admit that out of all religions I have studied, only yours is truly based in peace.
And to add to Nyarlathotep's definition: Atheism is the lack of belief in any god, or gods.
rmfr
Hitler was not an atheist, and neither was the rest of the German population which according to a census in 1939 was 96% christian. Hardly surprising since christianity is where antisemitism comes from. You had to a christian to be allowed in the SS, and they were responsible for the Holocaust.
"if there is no god then as Dennis Prager said how do we know that killing a person is bad"
If a person needs to be told murder is bad then they must be a pretty shitty human being. I am an atheist and I know killing is bad.
"Fyodor Dostoyevsky in his book Crime and Punishment said-"If God is not, everything is permitted.""
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg
Just because something is permitted doesn't make it right. There is a lot of research that shows theists commit at least as much violent crimes like rape and murder as atheists do. The two example you have chosen were dictators with absolute power in totalitarian regimes, their atheism is irrelevant. Atheism doesn't motivate behaviours, why would it.
He wasn't a Christian(later in his life) either, he was into the occult. Antis-Semitism didn't come from Christianity, that's just a lie. Hitler's agenda was taken from the occult. The people he was surrounded were high occultists priests(vril society).
@Kaustubh Kasture there is evidence that Stalin believed in god.
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Was_Stalin_an_atheist%3F
Dostoyevsky believed in a god that told one of his followers (Abraham) to kill a child. So, even with god, everything is permitted.
In my case, I could never kill a child. I would rather follow my own conscience than a god that tells people to kill children. So, it is hardly true that for me, without god, everything is permitted.
Grow up! People kill independent of what they hold to be true. Stalinism, Marxism, and Mao's communism are political ideologies - belief systems. All you are doing is playing the "Who killed more people religious beliefs or other beliefs." Your god butchers 8 million people in the bible. The actual life expectancy for a child in the world today is 50%. 50% of all children born all over the world never see their first birthday. Your God sends them to hell and we are not even going into history on this one. People die for beliefs. They die for religious beliefs. They die for political beliefs. That's just the way it is and it has nothing at all to do with religion or belief, it has to do with what we are.
An atheist has one less belief to kill for. Most atheists here are not communists, socialists, Marxists, members of the religious right or of the whacked out liberal agenda, Atheists are people who simply do not believe in God or Gods. That's it. Nothing else. Any other ideology they hold to be true is not a product of atheism.
1.What exactly is Atheism?-a disbelief in God or a lack of belief in God?
It can be both depending on the god you are talking about. For example, if you believe in an all powerful omnipotent god who knows everything, the future and the past and who has free will. Your god does not exist. It is self contradictory. It is like a four sided triangle. If your god knows the future, he already knows the decisions he will make as well as the ones you will make and so there is no free will. Omnipotence and free will are self contradictory.
There are 33,000 Christian gods in 33.000 Christian sects. Atheism begins at the point of simply not believing Religious claims for the existence of a god or Gods. If an atheist states, "This or that god does not exist." Then they are adopting a burden of proof. They must prove that the god they are speaking of does not exist. If the atheist simply says, I don't believe you. The burden of proof still falls on the religious to prove their claim.
Atheism is like the stars in the sky. If you look up at the stars and tell me "The number of stars in the sky are even." (god exists) When I tell you that I do not believe you, I am not asserting that the number of stars are odd. I am simply asserting that your claim has no evidence to back it up. You have not counted all the stars. You can not know their number. You have not seen God and you have nothing to prove it exists.
2. 2.Are all Atheists completely against religion?
Many are. I am. I am against religions in poor countries stealing from the poor and promising them a better life for their donations while their children starve and sleep on the streets. I am against religions that move pedophiles from place to place to avoid legal sanctions against their priests. I am against religions that build multi-billion dollar cathedrals while there are homeless people in the streets. I am against religions that build magic arks with government money and teach children stupid shit like men walked with dinosaurs. There are good reasons to be against religions. At the same time there are atheists who could just care less about what the stupid people in the world believe.
3.How do you separate historical self proclaimed Atheists like Hitler Stalin,Joseph Stalin and Mao.
We will pretend you did not mention Hitler in this mix. Obviously you have not read Mein Kamf. Article 25 or the entire Nazi Movement "We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us and is convinced that a lasting "
Obviously you have no idea that all the SS troops had "Us With God" embossed on their belt buckles.
Hitler hated religions that were stealing from the German people and working against the state, He charged the Catholic Church with educating the youth. You need to read a bit more history.
Mao's communism IS A BELIEF SYSTEM. It is not different from religion and the same can be said of Marxism. While we are at it Kim, Jong-un in North Korea is a God. Ask any N. Korean.
You are confounding "Belief systems, with belief in no system, and trying to compare apples with oranges. Not one person has ever been killed in the name of Atheism.
4.Is exactly agnostic atheist any different from atheist?
Agnostic is about what you Know. Atheist is about what you believe. Everyone is agnostic. You are agnostic. You were agnostic even when you thought you believed in a God. You could never prove it. You never KNEW it for sure. God is a non-falsifiable claim. As such it can never be known. What evidence we do have, lines up against the idea of a god or Gods.
There are agnostic Christians, agnostic Buddhists, agnostic atheists. It simply means "A - withot, Gnosis - Knowledge." As everyone is without knowledge, everyone is agnostic. An agnostic atheist simply does not believe in god or Gods, based on that lack of knowledge. There are a whole lot more ways to be atheist.
5.If we agree that there is no god then where do our morals come from?
(if you have any questions on Jainism or Hinduism you can ask me)
I have no questions on Jainism or Hinduism. I am well read on both. Morality is an evolutionary attribute of being human.
A human being in the wild is little more than a walking hamburger. We are soft and fleshy. We do not run faster than tigers, climb trees like monkeys, or swim like sharks or crocodiles. We don't have fangs or poison like snakes. Our skin is not armored like a rhino. We do not have the size of elephants or the flight of birds. We do not have the speed of a cheetah or the stealth of a panther. What we have is an ability to form groups and bond with one another. We are herd animals. As such, we must live together. We began in small family clans, evolved into tribal communities, small townships and eventually modern cities. In every step of the way, we argued about what is mine and what is yours. We argued about who will share in the hunt. We argued about who we should ban from the tribe and why. We argued about when we should kill or steal and why. As we became more complex creatures so did our morality. Why this is not completely obvious to a non-believer is a complete mystery.
Continuing - believers do not have morality. Believers have dictates, orders which they must follow. This is not moral. This is like a child obeying his or her parent so that he or she will not get a beating. Where is this morality you speak of in religion. If I am good, I am doing it to please God (daddy) or look good to church members (mommy). Following prescribed dictates is not moral.. Morality comes from within you. It is a sense of right and wrong that comes from the community around you. Morality is not dictated to you by a church or a magic book or even a make believe all powerful flying deity.
I guess i will agree that violence does not have a lot of common with atheism than it has with religion, but saying that there is still a question about absolute morality which need to be answered by Atheists.Like i have already pointed out that if there is no absolute morality then how can we conclude that killing a person is immoral.Why do we have a deep sense of righteousness that killing another person is wrong?
There is no "deep sense of righteousness that killing another person is wrong"; it's based on the fact that you yourself are a person. If you feel that killing a person is okay then that means it's okay for me to kill you.
Oh wait, that doesn't sound very good now does it? Maybe that's where you're getting this feeling from.
There is no absolute morality unless you can objectively show a deity exists, that you know what it thinks is moral, and that what it thinks is in fact moral. All you have is a subjective opinion as do all other theists.
You seem to be suggesting that if you lost your belief in a deity you'd suddenly think murder and rape were moral?
First, Mao was more into having everyone worship him as a god, saying he was atheist was convenient to him and his rise of power because basically he wanted people to fall in line and worship him instead of their own god ideas. As others say Hitler definitely was a theist, not atheist.
Uh you just used the word to exclude something then include it later in the sentence.
Let me rephrase that for you. If there is no murder then how can we conclude that killing a person is murder?
A dumb question where you excluded something, then turn around and say its impossible to do something that you just excluded.
There is no question at all about absolute morality. Please give me one example of absolute morality that God himself follows. If it is absolute, it is absolute. Or are you asserting a conditional morality based on the god of "Do as I say and not as I do?" Please provide an example of this absolute morality you speak of. And when you can not, as you will not be able to, admit that you have no idea at all what you are talking about.
Even if we somehow agree that morality is a concept developed by humans(through evolution)for their own well-being it just means that ancient humans did it because of their environmental circumstances.It does not say why should we continue it.Morality could be a trait like fear is,but today we still fear some things which is beneficial at times,but we do not question our own axioms about morality.Apart from that there is no peer reviewed paper which says that morality is an evolutionary trait.Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion also presents various hypothesis about how morality would have been created in a Godless universe,but science is yet to prove that ABSOLUTE morality is a Evolutionary trait.And if there is no God then if i kill a person just like Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov in Crime And Punishment it is actually beneficial for society subjectively but not objectively.It just means that if by logical and rational thinking i deduce that killing a person would be beneficial then it is right.A lot of people today would globally killing each other if that would have been the case.
Just for anybody to know i don't believe in evolution i KNOW evolution is true.
What in the hell are you not getting. It absolutely says why we continue being moral beings. All the non-moral beings were removed from the clans or tribes. Sent to their deaths. We killed those who stole, lied or cheated among the tribes and clans. We do the exact same thing today. People who can not function in society are removed from it. They are isolated in prisons or killed. The GENES and BEHAVIORS that support MORALITY are passed on and those that do not support it are extinguished. What is there not to understand in this. THERE IN NO MORALITY IN RELIGIOUS DICTATES. WAKE UP!!!
There is no "deep sense of righteousness that killing another person is wrong"; it's based on the fact that you yourself are a person. If you feel that killing a person is okay then that means it's okay for me to kill you.
This doesn't even make sense!
If you say that there is no deep sense of righteousness that killing another person is wrong and it is based on a FACT that you are a PERSON, it could mean anything like atheism doesn't make sense because no person or community has ever produced a successful society based on atheist values.And how does me being a person gives me a fact that there is no deep sense of righteousness.The claim has no logic and evidence.
A claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
-Carl Sagan,Repeated a lot of times by Christopher Hitchens.
It is only supposed on a basis that the other person would always kill me.And that is exactly what i am saying that you don't know the person you are killing is a Jihadi or a Jain(or a buddhist).One will always kill you while one has never even killed a bug.So how does people like Jains or Buddhists never kill anybody?
Feelings are created by evolution.So where does this FEELING of not killing arise from?
In short where does ABSOLUTE MORALITY came from?
''There is no 'deep sense of righteousness that killing another person is wrong'; it's based on the fact that you yourself are a person. ''
And we ourselves, as humans, are a social species. Our ancestors realized that if they ever wanted to take down prey and avoid being eaten, they had to cooperate and stop killing each other too frequently. The same thing applies to other social species too.
''No person or community has ever produced a successful society based on atheist values.''
Look at the Scandinavian nations--they've got the highest percentage of atheists. Other civilized nations like Japan and France are also highly secular. Communist dictatorships can be described as ''secular religions'' and were not based on atheistic values at all, even though they thought they were.
''So how does people like Jains or Buddhists never kill anybody?''
You don't need to be a Jain and Buddhist to refrain from killing people. What's more, a good portion of Buddhists in Myanmar have no problem with killing somehow.
''Feelings are created by evolution.So where does this FEELING of not killing arise from?''
Mutations, preserved by natural selection. If a kind of feeling has evolutionary advantage, it will pass down.
@Kaustubh Kasture
"Feelings are created by evolution.So where does this FEELING of not killing arise from?
In short where does ABSOLUTE MORALITY came from?"
Evolution gave us the material bodies and the neural pathways that are part of the body's ability to have "feelings". The "feelings" you and others experience is a result of the ability to think and respond. For example, if I witnessed a deranged person holding an infant precariously high, I do not need any divine guidance to figure out that if the child was dropped, tragedy would follow. If I am driving along a deserted road at night and saw a stopped car and someone in distress, I would not require any divine guidance to figure out that this person is in dire straights and I may be the only one to rescue them from their predicament.
I see the term "deep sense of righteousness" being used. What do you think that is? Is it not the brain processing the information and coming to the conclusion that whatever action taken was for the better good of all? Personally, I do not need any divine guidance to reach that conclusion. I can figure it out by myself. And I am sure that you are very capable of it yourself.
There is no such thing as "absolute morality". Morality is decided by the individual based on the circumstances. The Christian bible supports slavery. I do not. Therefore I do not respect or believe in "absolute morality" because a "good" Christian is supposed to blindly follow the guidance from the bible.
Evolution gave us the material bodies and the neural pathways that are part of the body's ability to have "feelings". The "feelings" you and others experience is a result of the ability to think and respond.
David but that is just a hypothesis,it's not even a theory.
You have no evidence for it.It needs to be backed by some scientific papers.
As for saying that neural pathways are where emotions are experienced, but we do not know were they originated from.
And your hypothesis that some unknown and unseen divine authority inserted programming into our brains is more logically sound?
At least with my hypothesis I can connect the dots, while yours has nothing but an assertion to support it.
I stand corrected; maybe you aren't a person.
@Kaustubh Kasture
Number one killer of humans is.... *drum roll* .... HUMANS!!!! Well besides disease, much of which we inflict on ourselves, so disease sort of counts towards human killing humans.
The fact that humans murder, rape, and terribly injure physically and psychologically each other everyday since we humans evolved tells us unequivocally there is no absolute morality. if there was absolute morality then this would not happen. Mosquitoes are the next most deadly killer of humans, but it is a distant distant second compared to humans. Humans murdering humans is likely to number well above a billion. So explain that, what absolute moral system lets well over a billion people abandon their morals when it is convenient to them?
I know I know its a scary thought for many theist to think there is not absolute morals, but all the evidence is all around you. Do you think the guy that dropped the atom bomb on nagasaki or hiroshima thinks about all the 10's of thousands of people he killed? Like each one? Did the person go on trial for it? Did he meet the grave markers of the people he killed? Mourned and felt bad for each one? Why does it seem like to this god dude, that whether you kill 1 person or 10's of thousands it does not have any effect from him in this life? If I am going to hell for killing 1 person what is to stop me from killing 100,000 more people?
Oh I know a little thing called society that creates its own justice system, and moral system. No god, or absolute morality needed, Not killing others arises from self interest, and our tendency to "pack up."
People can and do kill each other if placed in extreme scenario of a known zero sum situation. We see it frequently manifest as war. Something organized religion is famous for causing.
***giant tree starts clapping*** (which amusingly sounds like a cheerleader with two large pom-poms)
[Now where is that 10K-Agree button?]
rmfr
WOW! @ Kaustubh Kasture You just keep hanging onto that ignorance....
1. There is no "deep sense of righteousness that killing another person is wrong"; This doesn't make sense.
It makes perfect sense. If the only reason you do not kill another person is because some God told you not to, YOU ARE NOT BEING MORAL. If the only reason you do not kill another person is because you want to get to heaven. YOU ARE NOT BEING MORAL. If the only reason you do not kill another person is because you want to avoid bad Karma and being reborn more horrible than you are now... YOU ARE NOT BEING MORAL. There is no position you can take from the view-point of religion that leads to morality. Religion and religious beliefs are EXTERNAL. They are dictated. This flies in the face of a moral being. Morality is an internal sense of right and wrong. It may be dictated to us by our parents and teachers when we are young, but there comes a point when we no longer need parents and teachers, as fully functioning adults, and the morality we have becomes ours. You are still living in a childhood, fearing punishments and looking for rewards for your moral behavior. What if you just decided to do something moral for no other reason than you were a moral person? No Karma, no Gods, no punishments, no rewards, just moral for the sake of caring about the kind of world we live in?
2. atheism doesn't make sense because no person or community has ever produced a successful society based on atheist values.
You are incorrect. Successful societies have been produced. There are and were successful atheistic tribal societies. The fact that religious societies killed them all off is not a reflection of their lack of success.
"As Durant explains, certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports.
Tribes in Cameroon only believed in malicious gods and so made no efforts to placate or please them. According to them, it was useless to even bother trying and more important to deal with whatever problems were placed in their path. Another group, the Vedahs of Ceylon, only admitted the possibility that gods might exist but went no further. Neither prayers nor sacrifices were suggested in any way.
When specifically asked a god, Durant reports that they answered in a very puzzled manner:
"Is he on a rock? On a white-ant hill? On a tree? I never saw a god!"
Durant also reports that a Zulu, when asked who made and governs things like the setting sun and the growing trees, answered:
"No, we see them, but cannot tell how they came; we suppose that they came by themselves."
Any first year sociology student could show you the error of your assertions. Sweden, Denmark, Holland, France, Australia and England are for the most part atheist. Religion has all but died out in these countries. Guess what? They seem to be doing quite well.
***again giant tree begins clapping*** (and for some odd reason, it again sounds like a cheerleader with two pom-poms)
Dag nab it. Why can't we have a 10K-agree button?
Now that is the Cognistic I know and love...
rmfr
Well my answer is simple, but you probably won't like it: absolute morality is non-sense (does not exist in a meaningful way).
----------------------------------------------------------
Again, my response is: you might come to that conclusion, and others might as well; but that is not a universal conclusion. Just for starters, many of the members here are former soldiers; who have been paid to kill (at least from one extreme viewpoint).
Pages