I object to the average interpretations of theism as much as the fanatics. It makes no difference, one is the prerequisite for the other, they are both just as irrational. Islamic "scholors" are just apologists for their faith, skilled in memorizing arguments that make sense only to other faithful.
I'm not ignoring it. I just don't see any evidence of it. Who is more moral? The capitalist from the urban secular society or the Bushman from Africa?
I find both these positions odd. I am not I came up with my ethics rationally. I would say feelings of empathy and sympathy played a strong role in their formation. Rationality comes in with the detail work. And then SAM, you see no evidence that atheists can be ethical by your standards? You don't think that you and atheists, in many cases, can come to agreement about a wide variety of ethical principles. I find that odd. If you see no evidence, it seems to me that means you have never experienced an atheist being ethical.
It's only a problem so far as theists impose their irrationality on the rest of us, how they try to subvert science education, women's rights, peace on Earth...
You have got to be kidding me. Science is the most male-dominated and conservative field there is. And in many secular societies, the glass ceiling may as well be made of iron.
The reasons for this are complex, but they certainly aren't the result of a set of beliefs outlined in a holy book.
He was already damaged from birth.:bawl: Just like Dawkins. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! What happens to these atheist types in middle age?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How much evidence do you need besides a first-hand account? There aren't a lot of third-generation atheists to interview so I'm an acceptably large sample. I was raised that way. Throughout our entire life my wife and I have been told by Christians that we're more "Christian" than most of their fellow churchmen. You're quietly equating "secular" with "atheist." All atheists are secular but it's hardly true that all secular people are atheists. Something like sixteen percent of Americans identify themselves as unaffiliated with any religion, yet only one percent of us state that we don't believe in gods. People who believe in the supernatural structure of the universe as defined by religions, even if they don't follow the specific practices of any of those religions regarding kindness and responsibility, nonetheless almost invariably believe in an afterlife and in the possibility of atoning for their sins and being forgiven. Without consciously planning their lives out, this faith allows them to coast along, racking up sins, and then later in life when they're sitting around enjoying their pensions and waiting to die at a time when life isn't very challenging, they figure they'll repent, do a bunch of really good deeds like decorating the nursing home for Christmas, and they'll go to heaven alongside you who (regardless of my philosophical criticism of your faith) I'm sure live a life of enviable charity and selflessness. This is the fallacy of a religion that preaches divine forgiveness without restitution. I'm on shaky ground with my knowledge of Islam and I suspect Muslims can't get into Paradise quite as easily after a life of evil, but we're talking about my country and those wicked capitalists you're talking about are almost all Christians and Jews. Atheists don't get off so easy. If we screw up the world, even if the humans we've wronged forgive us, we must still die with the knowledge and guilt that we've made life harder for the people who have to fix it. If we're raised properly and taught to care about our fellow man, that is Hell. I'm not implying that atheist morality has the potential of creating nobler citizens than theist morality. The up-side of atheism may have no advantage over the up-side of Abrahamism and during its good periods an atheist society may accomplish no more than a religious society. My gripe with Abrahamism is over its down-side. During their bad periods Abrahamist societies have achieved uniquely abysmal levels of evil because their belief in a supernatural universe convinces them that their god will make everything all right in the end no matter how much death and destruction they wreak. I dispute your prediction of the morality of an atheist society not because I predict it will be notably better than a religious society at its best, but because it will be just as good at its best, and notably better at its worst.
And I dispute your claim on the basis that atheists have done nothing to make the world safer or better for others. And at their worst (one Stalin = 20 million dead) have been far far worse.
The primary influences that led to his atrocities were not atheism per se but his dogmatic Marxism and communist ideas.
Yeah, atheists can get very creative with their beliefs. Stalin wanted to be God. Eugenics was another dogma that still has many proponents. There was forced sterilisation of many inferior gene products.
Atheism in this case was merely incidental. ...communists are prone to oversimplification. Complex problems of the real world are explained in simplistic terms. Thus the communist eschatology of a classless society leads them to believe that collectivization is the main source of human happiness. Never mind the fact that each human beings have different - and opposing - dreams, goals and desires. They also believe that all problems of labor can be resolved by nationalization of all industries and the banning of private ownership. This saps the human spirit of the will to excel. This simplistic outlook spills into their belief about moral issues. Since communism is the ultimate good, anyone who is opposed to it must necessarily be evil. Like religious fundamentalists, to the communists everything is in black and white. "You are either with us or against us." Secondly, as can be seen above, communism resembles very closely the dogmatic faith of religious fundamentalist. It has, like other fundamentalist religions, a list of sacred writings known as the "communist classics". Infallible authority is ascribed to these writings. It pretends to represent the absolute truth by calling itself a "science". Yet it proceeds, as Bochenski wrote, "in the manner of a faith." [8] Note that in no case is atheism central to the building of these dogmatic positions. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/hitlerstalin.html
As incidental as Islam in suicide bombers. As incidental as it was in Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong
Is this secular humanism. I volunteered to tutor the only aboriginal student in the medical program. I donated 1/2 a work day a week preparing and teaching basic physiology. I have decided to start by going from apple to metabolic water and CO2 via aerobic glycolysis. This means talking about the gall bladder, the pancreas, enterocyte, Glut2 receptors, portal vein, liver, hepatocytes and their function, circulation, Glut4 and skeletal muscle, Glut3 brain, Glut 1 tissue, Glut2 beta cells, insulin production, glycolysis, pyruvate, AcetyleCoA, Krebs, CO2, NAD ->NADH, electron transport, O2, H2O, blood cells, hemoglobin, respiration, etc... then on to the hypothalamus, pit and endocrine function .... What do I get out of it? The satisfaction that the aboriginal community will have a doctor.
No, in that case, the suicide bombing is a direct result of religious ideology that promises them heaven in return for death.
There once was an atheist Muslim on these boards a LONG time ago. A mathematician if I remember correctly>?
This doesn't explain Japan. Most Japanese are at best non-religious. Including the people in power. Yet, they have a strong sense of civic duty, a strong sense that its important to help one another in Japanese society, social bonds are quite strong and generally most Japanese I know take a humanistic world view that we should never use war to settle differences and move together peacefully into the future. If I remember correctly you once condoned the war fought against the polytheistic Arabs - because they were ... polytheists? The war against the Persians because they were a threat? Well it really doesn't matter, there's always an excuse. The point is non-religious people can hold power and still be humanists something were have yet seen in a religious society. The theist always makes himself king and then sets about claiming divinity for his family succession. Big surprise there. Excuse those of us who want to move into the future via progression. Michael
