Thanks. But it's weird, because I don't tell stories like that for sympathy. But oftentimes it's the easiest way to explain the type of prejudice that is faced. It's really not that bad for me. I won't say it's great, but I've not experienced nearly the discrimination that some have, and I'm better off for having faced what I have. So my stories are instructive, but not intended as a pity party.
As a determinst, my beliefs on morality allow for complete acceptance, at least in theory. I can't blame my mother for believing exactly what she should be given the causes that led to her present state. It's also relatively benign - she's a middle-aged church lady...there's not a lot in her behavior that's going to offend most people. It comes back to what you said earlier; they can believe whatever, so long as it doesn't become "you should believe this too."
Now, the reason I don't get into it with her is twofold. One, I'd have to openly challenge her beliefs. I'm ok doing that to many, but how do you do that to someone who has defined herself by those beliefs, and who has never known anything else? And, for that matter, who doesn't perpetuate evil through her beliefs. I can't bring myself to do it. Not everyone can live happily without religion. But the other reason is, theory and reality are often different. I would get upset at her, because her views strip me of autonomy, and make my atheism nothing but a wrist slap as a result of a tiff between my mom and God. It's incredibly egocentric, regardless of whether she thinks it's punishment from God or just her own shortcomings. Both strip me of agency, as it was ultimately my decision and was entirely separate from any parenting decisions. The flip side of that is, she loves me, so all of those ridiculous beliefs stem from her guilt over thinking she could have done differently. F*cked up as it may be, the root cause of the irrationality is care, worry, and love.
So yeah, we let it be. I also don't want to make it seem like this is the defining aspect of our relationship. We actually get along fine. But this is always at leas somewhat present.
Except the studies I cited use statistical analysis. Percentages, not total numbers. Your commentary here would only be valid if the studies were structured differently (and poorly).
So, baseless accusations? Cool. And you couldn't be bothered to do a Google search, but you could be bothered to insinuate that atheist charities don't exist? You're batting 1.000.
I try to own up to it when I'm not rigorous enough. It's way classier than slinging mud at your opponent.
Not much, since publicly recognized atheism is relatively new culturally and still only represents 1-2% of the population in most countries (and never more than about 5%). It has, however, increased the statistical morality of the world, as shown by empirical research.
Citation needed.
Undoubtedly. ~40% of the world's population compared to 3-5%, it's not even a contest. Again, though, you're making the mathematical mistake of forming your arguments in terms of total amounts, not statistical representation. For this to be a valid bet, Christian charities would need to outnumber atheist ones at no worse than 8/1, and probably more like 12/1.
Putting words in my mouth. Read the thread I linked, and the part about argument from historical figures. My position is far more nuanced than this strawman. It's not about religious or non-religious people doing good or bad things. It's about which actions are because of religion or irreligion, which actions would stay or disappear if the belief system were different, and whether the net affect is positive/negative for either side.
For the most part, though, good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. I actually think religion (or lack thereof) has WAY less to do with most of it than many people seem to think. But again, atheists tend to be more moral, so while it's not proof, the empirical data we do have tends to favor non-religiosity in that debate, if only slightly.
Because OF COURSE religion is beneficial for many people. If you can't see that that doesn't detract from my statements, I don't know how to help you.
That's not what I said, or even implied. Much as I loathe arguments from historical figures, I guess you want to use it here. Many of the founders also owned slaves. That's as baseless an attack on religion as American laws are an endorsement of religion, but it appears we're just trading horrible arguments now.
Words in my mouth again. Would you rather just debate with yourself?
There are hundreds of variables we cannot control for in your country comparison, all of which having nothing to do with our discussion. Semi-related, I'm a libertarian. Atheism and communism are not equivalent, and I'm shocked I have to write something so obvious.
Also, if you're going to accuse of bias, you'll have to do it for decades of studies involving hundreds of independent researchers. I've also never said "irrefutable", so there's another case of you debating a ghost. But something doesn't need to be irrefutable to be convincing and the best answer we have available to us. I think it is both.
I don't think you actually understand how proper empirical research works. You've failed at basic understanding in several ways in just this brief post.
I think the terms are being mixed in this exchange. Taking on a philosophy, regardless of it's origin (secular humanism, for example), can be beneficial. However, it's akin to a placebo, as the actions, accountability, and choices are still yours regardless of the motivation. The point where Religion becomes irrelevant in human action is where people claim to have been actually moved by divine intervention or divine inspiration. There's no act of charity that requires belief in Religion/supernatural influence to be practiced outside of doctrine specific rites (communion, for example). Anyone can give someone shoes and soup.
Without evidence that the divine exists it's simply attributing your actions to a non-existent agency (i.e., when people say "God moved me to _____"). It doesn't make the act any less benevolent, but it's false attribution. Until the supernatural is proven to exist, it gives validity to the position that people are simply capable of being charitable.
So Deadline, here's a great example of why I don't think you realize what you're wading into:
One sentence, but it's an impossibly deep hole that we need to go down. Let's just take a peek:
The implication is that religion has done a lot for the world, more so than atheism. But you're framing it poorly.
My first response to you would be that I think literacy and science have done the most for humanity, historically. Occasionally those things have been led by religion, though just as often held back by religion (and, it should be noted, are violently oppressed by religion in many parts of the world as I type this). So religion as a historical contributor has good and bad...and again, we're not just talking about good and bad, but good and bad that wouldn't have existed otherwise if religion disappeared. Do you claim to know how much of each this is? You can't, of course, and neither can I. It's a fruitless line of thought.
So the best we can do is find examples from history that support our side, and there are many on either side, oblivious to the fact that none of it is comprehensive enough to draw reliable conclusions.
Now, in refutation, I've provided numerous studies, and collections of studies, that controlled for several important variables and were conducted in acceptably unbiased settings by researchers whose interests didn't bias them toward one conclusion or another. Do the collective results equal unassailable proof? Probably not, though the sheer volume of them make a convincing argument. But they're valid evidence, and they aren't as subject to the miasma of interpretation that your historical analysis invites.
This is a great point, and one I should have made to Deadline. To me (and you) all good is human good. And all bad is human bad. As such, removing religion wouldn't have a huge impact on either one. The good and bad would take other forms, of course, but the totality of it would remain largely unchanged.
I do think, though, for empirical reasons that I've cited here, and philosophical ones that I've discussed elsewhere, that atheism, while it lacks morality in and of itself, tends to lead to improved morality.
It's an odd distinction, but a correct one. Atheist morals are each individual's morals. It's not codified like it is with most religions, so there's more variance and nothing standards.
So I think we'd need to say that atheists have individual morality, but that atheism does not. As you say, its focus is more narrow than that.
No. Theism deals with a Deity (or Deities) that issue, in some cases, rules and commands. It's still up to the person who practices Theism to determine whether an action is moral or not, as well as to assess the comands and morality of their deity.
For an example (and thought exercise):
1. Is infanticide moral?
2. Whether a Deity commanded this act or not, would the mass killing of babies/children be immoral?
3. If the latter, by what determination do you deem this action immoral if a Diety had in fact commanded it?
4. Would you deem a Deity immoral that sanctioned/commanded such an act, or would the act be moral simply by virtue of the divine station?
5. By what determination would you make, and reconcile, that judgement (#4)?
6. Is a Deity moral because of what it says, or what it does?
7. If the latter, by what means do you judge it's actions?
Like I said, atheism only deals with one proposition: the existence of God(s).
So no, Atheism can't lead to a belief system because Atheism is only the opposed view to Theism (anti-Theism, non-Theism). Theism is belief in God(s). Atheism is the rejection of that proposition.
Humans are still capable of creating institutions, philosophies, fantasies, arts, fictions, etc. You can believe whatever you want. There are Religions which don't involve supernatural Gods, but advanced corporeal Aliens, as well as energy beings (Scientology and Raelianism, for example). I don't know whether Aliens actually exist, so I can't say I personally believe that, or all the claims about Alien Abductions and such either, but a lot of people do. All I can say is that given the diversity of life on this planet, and the fact that the elements and conditions on this planet are likely replicable, it's plausible that there's life on other planets. What that life is like, and whether it seeded life here on Earth or meddles in the affairs of humanity; Nah, I'm gonna need more than anecdotal testimony to accept that someone was provided information from Aliens about the origin of life on this planet and the plans these Aliens have made for our destinies.
In the end, we have the axioms of "Real is Real" and "True is True", and those axioms exist beyond belief. True is always True, whether you believe it or not, and an individual can't determine whether something is true until it is demonstrably, objectively, falsifiably proven.
My personal position is that until sufficient evidence for a claim is provided (irrefutable proof), the proper position, intellectually, is skepticism and disbelief. Non-Agency until proven agency. This position does not mean you can't have hypotheses. You simply can't state them as fact, and then impose them on others as if they were.
I'll respond tomorrow if I can but it's business as usual. There's a reason why I'm following this line of questioning, I hate to break it to you but its not because I lack intelligence. Note the atheist obnoxiousness.
I will but i'll do it tomorrow.
__________________ Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
No one said you weren't intelligent. You seem very predisposed to painting us as stereotypes. I'm actually usually quite docile, even in the religion forum and even when talking with theists, as is Delph. Your tone is very combative, though, so you're going to invite vitriol in your opponents.
Though, to your point about intelligence, I've pointed out several things that you've horribly misinterpreted. It's not a sign that you lack intelligence, but it is a sign that several of your arguments lack a logical foundation. I'm happy to have my opinion changed, but I can only work with what you write.
I do hope you respond to Delph's questions/points though, and my own if you have time. Attacks are tiresome. I'd rather discuss these things.
when i tried telling my mom i was atheist she just started crying cause she thinks i'll go to hell, so i took it back. that was when i was a teenager. these days i just sort of avoid the topic of religion around her and let her entertain the delusion that i really do believe without me ever saying so.
i also avoid the topic in school or work.. i don't want it to be held against me. in general though i don't hide it from friends, romantic partners, etc. i figure they can either accept it or else the relationship/friendship won't work out anyway. most of the time this works out fine for me. i have plenty of friends that i think are crazy and they think the same about me. doesn't seem to cause much conflict since there is a sort of mutual understanding there.
i do think it will pose some problems in finding a long term mate though. i live in the south as well so the odds are really not in my favor. not that i really care if the girl is religious... but usually they want you to be the same religion they are.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 6th, 2014 05:22 PM
