annoying arguement

It always annoys me when hear this type of thing .

The arguement goes along and the theist says " atheism leads to people doing terrible things and I'm pointing at Hitler, Stalin , ect ."

The atheist says " I could say the same thing about religion , look at the crusades and or suicide bombers ect"

Then sure as rain the theist says " well they must have been motivated by some twisted version of their faith" and goes on to say that if only they had held the same beliefs that the theist who is arguing the point held then there would be no such evil .

Religion is impossible to rationalize it seems to me .

Originally Posted by heli-guy

Religion is impossible to rationalize it seems to me .

No, it’s not. Religion can be maddening and exasperating, but on my good days I try my best to understand why people believe what they believe. Otherwise, if I fall into the trap of believing religion is impossible to rationalize, then it’s easy to label all religionists and theists as irrational and they become this faceless mass of pessimism that is rather too depressing to think about.

Religion is simply a part of human nature, which in itself can be incomprehensible, but there are many aspects that can be understood. There has been a lot of interesting interdisciplinary research on ethics and human morality the past several years. Social psychologists have been studying how situations can affect human behavior more than we ordinarily think, ie. how a generally good person (religious or not) can end up doing quite horrible things. Primatologists are finding that the building blocks of morality clearly predate humanity (and therefore, religion). Neuroscientists are finding that the psychological mechanisms involved in moral judgment and behavior are mainly triggered by emotional responses which can vary dramatically across cultures and situations (meaning there is no such thing as an objective morality, like God).

However, I would not argue that a religionist can be impossible to argue with! if an atheist were to unfortunately get into a conversation with a theist about how atheism leads you down the path of depravity, it is better to politely decline in engaging in such a pointless argument.

I just came across a review of a book called “A Very Bad Wizard” (Review - A Very Bad Wizard - Ethics more like a collection of converstations) that I’m interesting in reading.

The review mentions something interesting, along the line that moral arguments can be characterized by two main positions: either realist and anti-scientific or anti-realist and empirically-informed. Realist meaning a moral realism where there is an objective right and wrong. Empirically-informed is based on the view that morality is intimately bound up with our own concerns and natures and is thus relativistic. In any case, if you are caught in one of these opposing views, the argument will likely go nowhere.

Originally Posted by heli-guy

It always annoys me when hear this type of thing .

The arguement goes along and the theist says " atheism leads to people doing terrible things and I'm pointing at Hitler, Stalin , ect ."

The atheist says " I could say the same thing about religion , look at the crusades and or suicide bombers ect"

That's a bad argument.

As has been repeated many times, atheism isn't a belief system itself. It's simply the rejection of theist claims.

Speaking for myself, my actual belief system is humanism and freethought. My beliefs are atheistic in the sense that they don't include a belief in any sort of god, but this doesn't mean that I somehow have to subscribe to the same beliefs as Hitler or Stalin. Both of them were opposed to the ideals that I consider important, and so are the people responsible for the Crusades and suicide bombings.

In fact, I'd say that the mental distance to Stalinism is a lot shorter from many theistic religions than it is from atheism. To make some theists into Stalinists, you would only need to take out God and replace him with Stalin. To make an atheist into a Stalinist, you would first need to establish things like deference to spiritual authority and the mindset that non-conformist beliefs are inherently wrong.

Originally Posted by heli-guy

Then sure as rain the theist says " well they must have been motivated by some twisted version of their faith" and goes on to say that if only they had held the same beliefs that the theist who is arguing the point held then there would be no such evil .

One possible approach to this is to ask the theist what the source of their beliefs is. If they cite some authority, such as the Vatican, the Bible, or the Qur'an, then consistency demands that these sources also be authoritative even when they imply things that the theist doesn't like.

Another approach is to ask the theist how he knows that his interpretation is right and the crusader/suicide bomber's interpretation is wrong. Usually, this will end up in one of a few places:

- he ends up citing secular morality in his defense (though sometimes without realizing it).
- he reaches a point where his own interpretation is no more logically defensible than the suicide bomber's.

Stalin, Hitler and Mao do, however, create a problem that needs to be addressed. These are probably the most evil men in history if one considers just how many people died under their regimes. The crusades, suicide bombers etc.......did not kill even a fraction of the number of people that these three men did. All three were atheists. All three were opposed by religious people. Is it rationally honest to simply sweep them away as irrelevent to the conversation? How do we address the criticism that athiesm leads to a subjective morality unsupported by reference to an objective source that may lead to massive excess as seems to have been the case with these men.

The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.
Joseph Stalin

Stalin, Hitler and Mao do, however, create a problem that needs to be addressed. These are probably the most evil men in history if one considers just how many people died under their regimes. The crusades, suicide bombers etc.......did not kill even a fraction of the number of people that these three men did. All three were atheists. All three were opposed by religious people.

In a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933 Hitler stated, "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

Therefore, I think it is safe to remove Hitler from your list of non-religious killers.

Here's an interesting tidbit about Stalin written by Thomas Keyes, May 18, 2005:

Stalin grew up in a religious family and joined a seminary as a teenager expecting to enter the priesthood. In his late teens, dropping out of religious studies, he became an atheist and joined the Communist party, as the ruler of which he would go on to slaughter millions. Was his Christian education devoid of even a mitigating influence? Maybe, if, you tell me someone has had a Christian upbringing, I should run for cover.

It is very difficult to find anyone in our society who has not been influenced by religion. Religion is so pervasive.

We have records of the millions of people who have died as a result of the leadership of monsters like Hitler and Stalin, but we do not have records of the millions who have died at the hands of abusive parents, priests and teachers, who believed they were following god's instructions (i.e. spare the rod or spoil the child).

B Roodnick asked,

How do we address the criticism that athiesm leads to a subjective morality unsupported by reference to an objective source

A subjective morality may be supported by reference to the objective source of scientific experiment. If the "objective source" is a product of the imagination of men (i.e. god) then it is even more "subjective" than a morality based on scientific evidence and inquiry, or even morality based on agreement and social contracts worked out between humans for the benefit of the group.

The loss of life though abusive parents and priests is tragic, and indefensible. It is clearly rejected by any reading of the Bible.

What Bible did you read? Better read again. I think you may have skimmed over the segments that provide ample excuse for parents and priests to abuse children.

in what way are the actions of Stalin incompatible with Atheism.......well...they are not...........

Finally, you're right. Atheism does not make any claims about morality. It is simply non-belief in the existence of a god. So the actions of Stalin are not incompatible with his atheism, but they are incompatible with the Biblical claim of Christianity that if you raise a child to do right he will not depart from it. Clearly his Christian upbringing did not dissuade him from becoming a murderer.

I love the idea that we can subject morality to the scientific method and thus create working theories......anyone want to design the repeatable experiment that proves murder to be wrong

Historical data and psychological studies (although admittedly quasi-scientific) have provided quite a bit of evidence for determining what ethical standards work reasonably well for society. Murder is not always "wrong" in our society.