robbie1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 405
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
Define 'good' in this context.Not-That-Bright said:Is it a good one to hear?
Define 'good' in this context.Not-That-Bright said:Is it a good one to hear?
Will it make me giggle?robbie1 said:Define 'good' in this context.
Not the best argument in the world ---> even if you can show that 'evils' have been commited in the name of atheism (hard to do given that it is essentially a value neutral position) you are still left with a choice between two 'evils'. Regardless of whether atheism manages to come out worse, religion can still come across as a negative, which ties in with the reasoning of those who end up hating religion. Shifting focus onto atheism is just a distraction. Still, I maintain that atheism is more or less value neutral and that you would be hard pressed to find 'atheistic principles' which can be used to justify evil acts. I think your best shot for making atheism out to be worse than religion would be to argue that it lacks the moral underpinnings of religion, leading to a 'net loss of good' .robbie1 said:You conviniently left out the attrocities committed by every communist regime, driven by atheistic principles.
Although I personally feel it unwise to rattle down events that were in the name of religion or "atheism", you can attack religion as a whole, as an institution as well as theory.Anti-Mathmite said:Yes it is, because the idea of atheism held by such an authoritarian regime means that they set out to destroy all religion. Hence, no religion means misery. Misery is a human error, not a religious one.
You also cannot attack religion as a whole, because there are millions of people who have their own religion that is shared by no body but themselves.
I find that moral argument worse than the "atheism has done evils too" argument.KFunk said:I think your best shot for making atheism out to be worse than religion would be to argue that it lacks the moral underpinnings of religion, leading to a 'net loss of good' .
I agree with KFunk if only because the idea that atheism has any real principles that can lead to evils is silly. Atheism is at most the lack of certain principles.I find that moral argument worse than the "atheism has done evils too" argument.
1. Atheism is not a unified church.robbie1 said:You conviniently left out the attrocities committed by every communist regime, driven by atheistic principles.
yes but the lack of religion was a driving force behind those attrocitieswebby234 said:Yes, but they weren't motivated by their atheism, they were motivated (at least on the surface) by Marxist ideology. While atheism is (arguably) an element of Marxism, it is not the driving force behind it.
I disagree - I think that if they were religious they still would have committed the attrocities, just as we see in theocracies.yes but the lack of religion was a driving force behind those attrocities
No it isn't - just taking the definition from wikipediaathieism is a religion
and another definitionReligion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought.
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=religion said:1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
2. an institution to express belief in a divine power
Lol no it wasn't... are you claiming the reason communists comitted 'attrocities' was because they didn't believe in God? We see no evidence that this is a driving force behind their ideas any more than their likes/dislikes when it comes to food.yes but the lack of religion was a driving force behind those attrocities
What then is a moderate position to take on the religious front without believing in God?athiesm is an extremist position to take on the religion front
Agnosticismur_inner_child said:What then is a moderate position to take on the religious front without believing in God?
Well its at least a little statistically signficant that all the worlds mass murderers and most of their followers were nonreligious, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and so forth.Not-That-Bright said:Lol no it wasn't... are you claiming the reason communists comitted 'attrocities' was because they didn't believe in God? We see no evidence that this is a driving force behind their ideas any more than their likes/dislikes when it comes to food.
no Athiesm is more like: "I dont belive in a GOD, and everyone who does MUST DIE".ur_inner_child said:Atheism is "I don't believe in a God"
not
"I don't believe in a God thus everyone who does should die"
What then is a moderate position to take on the religious front without believing in God?