Hint: Atheism is a religion too.[/quote]
Um, fail.
:facepalm:
Atheism is a rejection of your outmoded and frankly quite odd belief in anything supernatural or teleological. it’s not a religion, and only people who don’t like to feel bad that they’re still believers in something like the existence of mythical beings would call atheism a religion, so that they don’t feel quite so foolish when confronted about it.
Hint: Atheism is a religion too.[/quote]
Um, fail.
:facepalm:
Atheism is a rejection of your outmoded and frankly quite odd belief in anything supernatural or teleological. it’s not a religion, and only people who don’t like to feel bad that they’re still believers in something like the existence of mythical beings would call atheism a religion, so that they don’t feel quite so foolish when confronted about it.[/quote]
Well, atheists all believe in being smug. So that’s probably the first tenet of your (pseudo) religion. 
I’ve said it before on this site and will probably say it again, I don’t understand why atheists have any form of morals or engage with any level of stress. You are just here as an anomalous blip yet you choose to conform to mass socialised behaviours? Madness.
I don’t feel bad in admitting there might be a God. To be honest, I’m more agnostic. Not hedging my bets, I just don’t really have any bloody clue.
God is not necessarily ‘supernatural’. I don’t think there’s any grand cosmic rule that says God has to be somehow detached from the physical universe.
It’s the height of hubris to assume that the slim part of reality that humans are able to perceive directly is all there is, or that anything we can’t perceive directly and/or can’t understand is ‘supernatural’. The honest scientist who can’t believe in a God can only say “I don’t know”. Asserting that you have proof of the non-existence of God is as daft as asserting proof of his existence. Atheists are entitled to believe that he ain’t there, but it gets a bit weird when they assert their belief as more valid than anybody else’s belief. That’s just plain old proselytizing.
God is not necessarily ‘supernatural’. I don’t think there’s any grand cosmic rule that says God has to be somehow detached from the physical universe.
It’s the height of hubris to assume that the slim part of reality that humans are able to perceive directly is all there is, or that anything we can’t perceive directly and/or can’t understand is ‘supernatural’. The honest scientist who can’t believe in a God can only say “I don’t know”. Asserting that you have proof of the non-existence of God is as daft as asserting proof of his existence. Atheists are entitled to believe that he ain’t there, but it gets a bit weird when they assert their belief as more valid than anybody else’s belief. That’s just plain old proselytizing.[/quote]
Right. So both atheists and theists, when asked about God, can only honestly say “I don’t know”. To which the atheist adds, “Since you’re making a claim that this thing exists, do you have any evidence for it?”
Now, if you are a modern sophisticated theologian who believes in the apophatic God, fine.
If you are saying there may or may not be a Supreme Being who may or may not be a Being, and who may be natural or may be supernatural and who may or may not be in some sense knowable or unknowable and some day we may or may not know something about Him/Her/It/Them/Whatever, I certainly won’t argue with your belief.
And believe me, if you’ve read Karen Armstrong or other modern theologians of the “woo” variety, that is basically what they say when they attack those smug atheists- then when they speak to the religious, they tell in endless detail through many many books, columns, articles Internet posts etc exactly what He is like and what He wants us to do.
[quote=“rowland”][quote=“MikeN”]
Backwards- development starts first, usually driven by strongly immoral practices- squeezing the peasants off the land; stealing land from the natives or traditional possessors; using the state to enforce unfair laws and labour practices- the period known as “primitive accumulation” that our free-market economists from Adam Smith down are so eager to ignore.
[/quote]
I’ll take the empirical data point, anecdotal as it is, over Marxist doctrine any day.[/quote]
The empirical data point is these people are poor. Everything else is explanation.
Right. So when I see the unproductive green grass in front of someone’s house, I’m entitled to rip it up and plant potatoes.
Or I see somebody’s nice vacation house that sits empty fifty weeks a year, I’m entitled to rent it out and keep the profit for myself, because they’re not using it productively.
[/quote] Besides which, the peasants’ ancestors probably stole the land from some other group. Should we give America back to the Clovis culture? Give Israel back to the Caananites, or even the Neanderthals?[/quote]
No- just acknowledge that the current distribution is not based on any moral system, and take it from theere, as opposed to saying if a thug smacks me on the head and steals my wallet, from that moment on I should accept the morality of the new distribution of wealth.
I didn’t stipulate that a god had to be supernatural only. there was an Or in there: “or teleological”. I don’t believe the universe has purpose. If you think it does, it does need an explanation from you about why,. I’m quite happy to accept that we’re just temporary aggregations of atoms that get together and then drift apart later. Quite pointless, really, although when stuck together in the right way, some bunches of atoms can do amazing things.
of course, God may turn out to be all that dark matter. You know, that’s almost supernatural: we can’t really detect or interact with it, yet many modern theories of gravity and gravitational effects on universe function seem to suggest there is a lot of extra energy and stuff out there somewhere.
Hey, I’ve just invented my own theology. See how easy it is?
Ah! That’s your religion, super! You believe in Agnosticism. Not having a bloody clue is the first tenet of your religion. :lick:
But why wouldn’t atheists have morality? Just because we haven’t signed up to your particular world view it logically follows that we have no morality?
Here is a study about you.
[quote=“Personality and Individual Differences 54 (2013) 389–395”]
Past research indicates that being religious is associated with prejudice toward racial and value-violating out-groups. However, this past research treated religiosity as a unidimensional construct without taking into account how different components of religiosity—belief in a higher power and the rigidity/flexibility of religious beliefs—are associated with measures of prejudice. Two studies examined the relationship between these two components of religiosity, as measured by the Post-Critical Beliefs Scale, and racial (African Americans, Arabs) and value-violating prejudices (atheists, gay men). As the flexibility of religious beliefs increased (literal vs. symbolic dimension), attitudes toward racial and value-violating out-groups became more positive (Study 1). As belief in God strengthened (exclusion vs. inclusion of transcendence dimension), attitudes toward value-violating out-groups became more negative. Study 2 demonstrated that these two components of religiosity fully mediated the relationship between general religiosity and prejudice toward African Americans, Arabs, and gay men and partially mediated the relationship between religiosity and prejudice toward atheists. Results are discussed in light of reexamining the conclusion that simply being religious is associated with prejudice[/quote]
More religious, more prejudiced? How does that fit in with your world view?
After all, the sun is worshipped as a god by some cultures.
Yeah, the supposed connection between theism and morality has always puzzled me. “How can you be moral without god”? As if there’s a cause and effect there.
I look at history, with the religious wars, the Spanish Inquisition, Islamic extremism and so much more, and I see devoutly religious people committing atrociously immoral acts. And in my life I have also seen plenty of atheists who are genuinely kind and helpful people.
Sometimes I hear religious people say “If I didn’t believe in god, what’s to stop me from raping and killing?” The answer is my conscience prevents it. I don’t want to be raped or killed, therefore it makes sense that others don’t want it either. The topic of morality is a complex subject that people far smarter and more knowledgeable than I could ever hope to be have wrestled with for millennia, but it’s clear to me that religion is not necessary for a person to behave in a moral way.
In any case, who’s more moral: the atheist who has no inclination to rape or kill, or the theist who says “Without god, what’s to stop me from raping and killing”? The latter has indicated he has this demon within him.
If you can get away with it. Law means nothing in the long run unless backed by force. Force has meaning in and of itself. Every political revolution is technically illegal until it succeeds.
Say, how about that drought in California? Rich people (including the government) still manage to water their lawns, but the crops are dying. That’s just not right. Do you think it’s right?
Using argument to discuss beliefs is like using banjo to paint the ceiling. No-one in this thread will change anyone’s sincerely held beliefs because religious (incl the folks who believe they don’t exhibit religious behaviours) beliefs are emotional and habitual responses to certain stimuli.
Jazz. Lord of the Rings. Buddhism. You’ll never convince me that these are not the domain of simpletons … just because. But a be-bopping hobbit in an orange robe, as soops states above, his limbic system is going to be going off like popcorn with these things and nothing I say about man-noise, hackneyed elf-y visionquest nonsense or it being a child’s belief system is going to jive with someone who loves that stuff. Those whose pleasure centres are lit up by Miles Davis are not going to decide he’s crap and change to modern opera, or just stop listening to music at all because people point out what they dislike about his music.
You can argue, as an outsider, why anything is bad, illogical, whatever, but religious faith doesn’t operate like that. So if you want to kill all religion, you have to change tack and get a paintbrush. Put the banjo down because we’re just laughing at you and wondering why you’re waving it at the roof.
Me, I try to be tolerant, unless someone says 'Weeeell, I hate organised religion but I’m a very spiritual person. All bets are then off, you mthrfckng bore. 
Atheists have morality, so long as it’s not too inconvenient.
Atheists can also be remarkably prejudiced and intolerant, even violent – so long as it’s not too inconvenient. But that’s been done to death.
To stand on principle when your life is at stake takes something like fanatical faith. Or irrationality. All those brave men whom we honor on Memorial Day did not act in their own individual rational self interest. They were, by some standards, nuts.
The way to make atheists better people is to make being a bad person more inconvenient. That won’t work as well on the religious, however. If atheists are better behaved than the religious, that’s not evidence that atheists are inherently better. It’s evidence that society has set up the right incentives.
In the Soviet Union, the incentives were all wrong, and the atheists were very nasty indeed. Leopold and Loeb also had the wrong incentives: they thought they could get away with it, and they weren’t that far wrong. This is why intelligent, rational people do horrible things.
Conscience? Vastly overrated. Conscience is that little voice in our heads that is all too easily ignored.
You may as well, unless you’re prepared to take the wallet back somehow. Or at least do something to prevent such acts in the future. Morality means nothing without action. That which you submit to is authority. The mugger has as much standing to call himself a legitimate tax collector as any duly appointed goverment agent who acts above the law.
Besides which, most muggers are poor. You don’t want to be insensitive to the plight of the poor, do you?
[quote=“rowland”]
To stand on principle when your life is at stake takes something like fanatical faith. Or irrationality. All those brave men whom we honor on Memorial Day did not act in their own individual rational self interest. They were, by some standards, nuts.[/quote]
Yep. They absolutely were not libertarians making rational calculations as to how to get the biggest pay-off for themselves. Collectivists, each and every one, giving their life for the common good. Patriots, Nazis, Crusaders, Communists, 9/11 bombers, ISIS.
Yep- set up a nice humanist society. Say “if you hurt other people, we will arrest you and do bad things to you. If you do good things, there’s a chance of a nice pay-off in this life. Other than that, we don’t care what you believe.”
Naw. From what we can see, all it takes is prosperity and education and it will wither away by itself.
That was my reaction to Phillip Pullman’s Dark Materials Trilogy attacking Christianity, and my reaction to New Atheist attacks- it’s like announcing your taking a strong stand against heliocentrism.
I mean, a hundred years ago it might have been necessary, but these days? Unless you live in Alabama or Uganda or some similar place…meh, why bother? Hell, even Ireland doesn’t pay attention any more.
[quote=“superking”]
I’ve said it before on this site and will probably say it again, I don’t understand why atheists have any form of morals or engage with any level of stress. You are just here as an anomalous blip yet you choose to conform to mass socialised behaviours? Madness.
I don’t feel bad in admitting there might be a God. To be honest, I’m more agnostic. Not hedging my bets, I just don’t really have any bloody clue.[/quote]
I used to be agnostic myself, but these days I’m not so sure (drumroll).
But seriously- yea, the question of morality is a problem for atheists the way the Problem of Evil is a quandary for theists.
There are huge numbers of solutions, most of them problematic- intuitionism, Kantian rationalism, various forms of moral realism, evolutionary morality, pragmatism- none of them fully satisfactory as far as I’m concerned- and I’ve been looking for almost fifty years.
I’ll settle for the fact that these days I’m too old, slow and tired to be evil.
…until the prosperity withers away and the education becomes divorced from reality and the state becomes a religion. Then the state fails dramatically, and it’s time for a less implausible religion. That’s the way the US seems to be heading right now. And Europe is almost ripe for a Jihadi takeover.
Religion exists because all but the most shallow people know that good things in this world cannot be trusted to endure. When the ship is sinking, you grab onto any random piece of flotsam that comes to hand and hope for the best. Unless you don’t notice that the ship is sinking. Then you drown happily. To be a secular humanist is to build a Titanic and worship it as unsinkable.
The secular West will fall, because it is has no firm foundation. It’s already crumbling in places. The only question is: what sort of faith will supplant it? Christianity has lost all self confidence. The Jihadists have plenty of self confidence. The man in the dynamite vest isn’t going to blink first.
And Progressives? A bunch of fanatics, minus the faith in something greater than their physical lives that makes personal existential risk feasible. They haven’t the stomach for a real fight. After they’re done eating the Christians’ lunch, they’ll be begging the Caliphate for mercy.
[quote=“rowland”]
Religion exists because all but the most shallow people know that good things in this world cannot be trusted to endure. When the ship is sinking, you grab onto any random piece of flotsam that comes to hand and hope for the best. Unless you don’t notice that the ship is sinking. Then you drown happily.[/quote]
That’s an amazing analogy. Personally I think more of my ideals than a piece of flotsam I keep hanging around just in case the ship sinks. Who thinks anything endures? We all die sir.
To be a secular humanist, one must accept that the ocean is wet.
The first line of the OP is an invitation for a debate based on reason.
Morality and religion are not outside the purview of science. Just as geologists study mountain ranges and biologists study animals and plants, scientists are out there right now studying human morality and religions. None of this is an attack on the subject matter under investigation. Geologists are not out to destroy all rocks (only a few little ones, which is why they carry such small hammers 
), biologists are not out to destroy all living organisms (only a few little ones which is why they carry those small hammers 
), and sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists are not out to destroy human morality or religion.
Theists and atheists alike are equally amenable specimens for dissection.
I read and quote studies on religion because I find it interesting in the same way that geologists find rocks interesting. Religion is obviously part of the human condition; as an atheist I feel no conflict with this. Any atheist of a Darwinian bent who sees religious belief as somehow errant behaviour should contemplate the fact that strongly religious people have more children than atheists do.
And anyone who believes that atheism is a religion should read something about the topic. A definition of terms is an excellent place to start. Of course, relativists and nihilists need not apply. Atheism is simply a lack of theism, and a lack of a thing is not a thing. Atheism is an absence. ‘I don’t play football’ is not a sport, at least not one that is played at the Olympics. Yet. At the very least blindly accuse us of humanism or utilitarianism or something, some belief system to show you can correctly discriminate between things that exist and things that do not.
Maybe I could have phrased that a little less indelicately. 