The word was "inherent" value, axeman, inherent value. And it's quite true that by and large, most atheists do not. Again, that's beside the point. It is no more "patently false" for me to say that an atheist's beliefs and the constraints that these puts on the possible value systems he can adopt prevent him from valuing life as deeply as a theist than it is for you to say that atheists value life "far more" than theists. I'm not trying to "prove you wrong" here, you can feel free to believe whatever you like (as can all of us), I'm only trying to point out a better way to look at the situation. Especially seeing as you are deeply imbibed in the "debate paradigm", with which you are no doubt hoping to convert the entire world; very important in that case to get the story straight. (Good luck with it, by the way. I can see you're having amazing success.)
"What I'm "pinning" it on is that atheism simply makes it easier -- or "just as easy", if you like " Incorrect again. How can a LACK of belief make anything easier or more difficult? Atheism, ALONE, gives man no reason to kill, unlike religion. It is also not mutually exclusive with a moral/ethical code. How? Quite easily (and obviously, I would have thought.) If a person lacks the belief, for example, that lying is inherently bad, that lying is wrong, that one simply must not lie, wouldn't you agree that it becomes quite straightforward for that person to go ahead and lie? Again, I didn't say athiesm gives people a reason to kill; only that it makes wanton killing a lot easier. Now, I know you can say that a lot of religious people have wantonly killed also (no shit!) and that they, in fact, had a direct religious reason for their killing. I won't deny that, historically (more so) and today, religious differences lead to much bloodshed, however that's more the fault of either the religions in question or the religious leadership sanctioning the killing. My point is more to do with a more basic, nondoctrinal theism, which isn't, of course, what is practised by the majority of theists, but the point does still stand that out of the two -- atheism and theism -- an atheist would, on average, find it easier to kill. Again, not to kill for atheistic reasons, only that atheism makes it easier to justify the killing (when compared to the brand of theism I am representing). "-- to justify killing, because for the atheist there isn't any real sense of morality, it's only a piddly little emotion that he can, in time anyway, easily overcome. " Yet another completely false premise. You have NO IDEA what sense of morality an atheist has. Atheism does NOT address or exclude morality. Period. What is morality to an atheist then? Isn't it entirely subjective? Isn't it the case that the only reason something is "wrong" or "bad" is because the atheist himself "feels" that it is? In other words, precisely what I said; a trifling emotional state. As any good trader knows, there is nothing inherently special about emotional states, that there's nothing that can't be changed or managed (a big key in trading). If something is only bad because "ooh, yuck. I don't like that", then it's a lot easier to overcome than if (you believe) something is really bad, inherently, intrinsically bad. I understand it's possible for an atheist to hold that morality is objective, that there is some intrinsic standard of good and bad in the universe, but, from my experience, the vast majority of atheists do not. In fact, given that there really isn't any open and shut evidence to suggest that morality is objective, accepting that it is becomes, like belief in God, an article of faith. Therefore I consider not only highly improbable for an atheist to subscribe to any notion of an objective morality, but logically impossible; given that he rejects belief in God on faith he must also reject belief in objective morality on faith. "And to the extent that communism/marxism demands atheism (and it surely does) then atheism did play a role in what happened in happened in those communist states; unless you want to shoot for the absurd position that values and beliefs play no part in deciding behavior. Now that would be really hilarious." You have failed to make any connection between a LACK of belief and the russians terrible behavior. You also choose to IGNORE the obvious, that their tyrannical communistic ideals were the driving force of these events, and instead attempt to make the leap to atheism. Not THAT is truly hilarious. Well, I covered how lack of belief can influence/determine certain actions in the first part of this post. So, with respect to communist slaughters, I'll illustrate how it works. First of all, I think your knowledge of communism/marxism is a little lacking, my friend. History has shown that marxist/communist leaders have often -- but not always -- been tyrannical; but there is nothing in the "communistic ideals" you speak of that demands tyranny. In fact, communism was supposed to be an answer to tyranny. So I wouldn't be as quick as you to ascribe death and slaughter to communism because they are requisite of a communist state, because they are certainly not. Now, imagine, if you will, that communism didn't demand atheism. That the communist leaders were vehemently committed to their goals of setting up a communist state, but they were also devout Christians (for example). Nothing else in the political or economic climate is different. That's the setup. Therefore, to achieve their goals, they still would have been required -- given the resistance to them (that actually occurred) -- to kill all those people that the real (atheist) communists did kill. Only now, there's an extra cog in the works that makes following through with that action a bit tougher -- Christian beliefs regarding the sanctity of life. Obviously it is much easier to kill if you don't believe there's anything really wrong with killing, that you're not breaking any cosmic laws. In fact, I would suggest that the replacement of devotion to God -- a God who, in theory anyway, does not permit wanton killing -- with devotion to The State -- a State which demands all necessary measures --made it even more easy to ruthlessly slaughter millions. Whereas the church and the pope himself have explicitly put people to death for heresy in the name of god, im not aware of a single case where a communist put anyone to death for NOT BEING A GOOD LITTLE ATHEIST. Yes, the church hasn't been perfect. No doubt about it. Grave, grave injustices. Remember though, you're talking historically. How many incidents of the Christian church killing someone for heresy do you know of in the 20th century? As people have matured and become and enlightened so has the church (the Christian church anyway); afterall, it too is composed of people. I know you can find many other examples, right to the present day, of religious communities demanding death for "heresy", but that's more a mark against those particular religions, rather than a mark against religion as a whole (although it shares some of the blame), but I don't think it has anything to do with the sort of deism I'm talking about. Using your very same logic, I could just as easily assert that Hitlers slaughter of the Jews was because of his christian (catholic) beliefs. That THIS was the reason, and not the more OBVIOUS reason, that he was a raving lunatic. If you claim that atheism is responsible for the deaths of communistic people, then you must also accept that Hitlers murder of millions was due to his christian beliefs. Absurd. No, it's not all that absurd. I'll be the first to admit that religions have, historically especially, been extremely divisive and that those divisions have led to acts of unspeakable cruelty. With the Nazis example, Christian beliefs obviously played a role. However, just as the communists didn't kill because of their atheism, rather their atheism helped to kill, the Nazis didn't kill because of their Christian beliefs, rather, their Christian beliefs helped them to kill. Only, the difference is that the role played by the Nazis' Christian beliefs only extends to creating a perceived difference -- an immence difference -- between themselves and their Jewish victims; the Jews being of a different religion. Of course, the whole thing needs to be taken into context. At the time much "scientific research" was done into "proving" that the Jews "weren't really human", which also obviously made it a lot easier to kill them. Really, the whole thing is quite complicated and your gross generalizations are deleting far too much important information; we must keep it simple as possible, yes; but not simpler.
alfonso, You are unnecessarily complicating the whole job. People had established moral values before 'gods' were invented. The invention of a God is nothing more than a convenience for having these values handed over to a 'greater power'. I would think it is harder to justify a killing when you value what is right for humanity on the basis of how it effects upon another's life, rather than on the idea that a 'greater power' may or may not find it is allowable. Theism shifts the words right, wrong, good, bad and inserts the word God in their place. But it doesn't alter the fact that right, wrong, good, bad can be assessed without the need to juggle the word God in between or in place of them. Take away God and theism and you still have morality, it doesn't disappear even though the theist insists it does. Take away God you can't and don't remove right, wrong, good, bad. They were present prior to any understanding of a Jesus God or modern day God or even ancient Gods and they are present without these things. When you take away theism you have atheism, you still have morality. It doesn't disappear. Axeman gave excellent reason why morality and moral standards come about out of a need from natural human necessity. Right, IS right itself, same with wrong. To get any meaning from them it is necessary to give meaning to them. If someone just says God is right, they might be lying and you still have to ask... what does God say is right? You've made no progress at that stage. Right itself still needs establishing. You get to 'right' more clearly by the removal of added and unnecessary accession , not by introducing it. If you want God to be all that is 'right' you are just replacing all that is right with the word God. The word God (and all it's associations) is superfluous. If I declare to you what is right and you like it, you surely don't then proclaim to all and sundry 'stu is all that is right'.... Although come to think of it ...that may work..
this statement, among others made, is not accurate. people have always sought a higher power. to think otherwise is foolish. best, surfer
Stu: Im going to pull a fast one on you.....provide certain prrof that people had moral values long before 'gods were invented"??? Ever hear of soddom???? Noah?????? Lord of the Flies???? This comes right back to my earlier point about : PROVE TO ME THE LYING, CHEATING, STEALING are wrong without using God or statutes ??????.....BTW what is MORAL to some is differnt to others....Mourmans have multiple wives, while some religions would find that offensive..
"Would you consider it intellectual pride to ask ZEUS to prove himself to you?" You have dodged THREE times now Doubter. axeman ________________________________________ The pride is not based on whom you ask but on the motives of the asker. In the case of axeman the answer is yes.
You are unnecessarily complicating the whole job. Or is it you that is unecessarily simplifying it? People had established moral values before 'gods' were invented. The invention of a God is nothing more than a convenience for having these values handed over to a 'greater power'. The 'invention' of God is far, far more than that. You, personally, as an atheist, I really don't think you're qualified to speak on the matter. I would think it is harder to justify a killing when you value what is right for humanity on the basis of how it effects upon another's life, rather than on the idea that a 'greater power' may or may not find it is allowable. Well, maybe that's what Stu would do. Would others? That is the question and I guess it will forever remain open. Certainly neither viewpoint (mine or yours and axe's) is the clear favorite. Theism shifts the words right, wrong, good, bad and inserts the word God in their place. But it doesn't alter the fact that right, wrong, good, bad can be assessed without the need to juggle the word God in between or in place of them. Oh, I agree with that. But that again returns to your contention that 'God' is a mere contrivance, whereas theists tend to see it as something far greater. Take away God and theism and you still have morality, it doesn't disappear even though the theist insists it does. Take away God you can't and don't remove right, wrong, good, bad. They were present prior to any understanding of a Jesus God or modern day God or even ancient Gods and they are present without these things. The point is that, with God, the notions of 'good' and 'bad' take on a far greater meaning. They're no longer mere affirmations of emotional state, they take on an added, almost ineffable quality. Whether or not man understood these concepts before he discovered (invented, according to you) or gained an understanding of or insight into God is irrelevant; I never said that man didn't know morality until he came to know God. When you take away theism you have atheism, you still have morality. It doesn't disappear. Axeman gave excellent reason why morality and moral standards come about out of a need from natural human necessity. Yes, I imagine such reasoning sits beatifully with his reductionist worldview; which is a long way from being the be all and end all on the matter. You get to 'right' more clearly by the removal of added and unnecessary accession , not by introducing it. You may get 'to right', yes. In fact, you'd certainly want to; because I haven't once stated that 'what is right' has been given to us in any uncertain terms. Only that once you do get there, what you uncover isn't simply a consensus on emotional states, it's much, much more. Stu, remember, I'm not offering all this as my way to convince anyone that theism is true. I'm just saying to counter axeman's assertions (stated and unstated) that atheism is a better life choice or that atheists value life more than theists. As I said, there aren't any simple answers to these questions, but if someone is going to take the trouble to muse over them and reach (and proclaim) conclusions, then one should take care to fully understand (and not mispresent) the issues.
The QUADRUPLE dodge...nice... very nice. I was going to mention something before, but now you have made it clear to all just how weak your position really easy. The fact is.... you would not consider intellectual pride to ask ZEUS to prove himself to you, BECAUSE you don't even believe in zeus. I no more show intellectual pride asking god to prove himself to me, than I do asking Peter Pan to prove himself to me. It's simply silly. There is no pride involved whatsoever, same as there is no pride involved if you were to ask ZEUS to prove himself to you. But of course, you had to dodge the question 4 times, because after all, you painted yourself into a corner peace axeman
Axeman, I'm going to put my Freud hat on for a moment and suggest that pride entered the picture for you so long ago that you don't even realize it's there anymore. I am quite certain you won't see it that way, but that's because you, and Doubter and I are worlds apart on this.
I'm not going to respond point for point, since you missed my main point again, and it's not relevant. I'll be more clear this time. "If a person lacks the belief, for example, that lying is inherently bad, that lying is wrong, that one simply must not lie, wouldn't you agree that it becomes quite straightforward for that person to go ahead and lie?" No I would not. Here is your main flaw. You ASSUME that since atheism does not explicitly/inherently have/state a moral code, that all atheists are therefore more likely to kill because they LACK a moral code. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't know a SINGLE atheists that lacks a moral code. This is precisely the point. The attribute of atheism, in no way implies that the atheist lacks a moral code. It does NOT in any way exclude a set of ethics/morals. You in fact, have no idea what the atheists moral code is. There are millions of atheists in this country, and yet they are not running around killing everyone, now are they? Why is that? Because they DO HAVE a moral code. Look at the national academy of sciences members. Would you assert that the 92% god-less majority all lack a moral code? Hogwash. Atheism does not occur in a vacuum. Therefore, you cannot assert that atheists are more likely to kill than theists, because you have failed to prove that atheists LACK a moral code that prevent them from killing, or lying, or whatever. On the contrary, we are well aware of how religion EXPLICITLY calls for the death of some groups of people, such as non-believers. So my original assertion still holds true. Some religions, explicitly bias people to kill, which tips the scales in favor of atheism, as being less violent. A absence of god belief alone is not capable of actively biasing people to kill. But the presence of at least some god beliefs, does in fact bias people to kill. peace axeman