What good is Atheism?

[John Eric Tiessen]

WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING

Extreme view points are likely to be expressed in this discussion and a flame war will most likely break out. Please do not continue with your reading if you are any of the following: Easily offended, weak minded, pregnant, nursing, or may become pregnant (this debate will probably ruin the mood if you are trying to get pregnant)

The question: Atheism is a system of belief that purports to believe that there is no God/gods and no divine powers in our world. That said Atheism believes that the world is as we see it. With that in mind the obvious question that most theist would have is, what is the reason for doing good then? I will concede to the Atheists that doing good out of feeling guilty towards a higher power isn't really doing good, it is being scared. When Atheists do good then they are doing out of genuine compassion more often then not. If they are doing it for selfish reasons well then they are no better than the theists. Unfortunately however, there is a lot of blood on the hands of both the theists, and more recently, the atheists.

Here is what I am getting at. In the 20th century there where more people living on this planet than there had been at any other time in the past. The blood shed of the 20th century is also some of the greatest that humanity has ever seen. Communism played no small part in that blood shed. Communism is a political philosophy that believes at heart that there is no God/gods. Therefore, almost all communists were atheists (in theory). This included people like Stalin, Mao Zedong, and members of the Khmer Rouge. According to The Black book of Communism, in the 20th century there where between 85 and 100 million people where killed in various communist uprisings and takeovers. Compare that to the Holocaust, around 10 million people.

What I want is a reasonable answer from theists and atheists as to why so many enlightened people would do such a horrible thing over the course of the 20th century. Atheists have a right to criticize theists for their crimes against humanity. However, these crimes must be answered for too.

If atheism is so superior then why did all this death and destruction occur in communist societies?

*Note: In no way am I trying to say that Atheism is morally wrong! It is a philosophy that should be respected and appreciated. This is just a bit of history that has always bothered me. By the way the statistics given can be found on both Wikipedia and Amazon, just look on pg. 4, in The Black Book of Communism.

[Eystein,]

The point the Bible is making is that God has the right to judge sin. People do not. Hence, that is why God judges, but people are not called to do so.

 

Yet it seems odd though, that at some point it was perfectly okey for one favored group to valse in and extermine another group who had the misfortune of living on the land they had been promised. There they could stone and execute one another in harmony according to the laws handed down by God. Then some thousends years later Jesus, son of said God, comes along and reverse the whole paradigm.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Yet it seems odd though, that at some point it was perfectly okey for one favored group to valse in and extermine another group who had the misfortune of living on the land they had been promised. There they could stone and execute one another in harmony according to the laws handed down by God. Then some thousends years later Jesus, son of said God, comes along and reverse the whole paradigm.

Actually, the paradigm did not change substantially. If you read the OT, you see that God had planned things for above and beyond the national borders of Israel. Furthermore, I strongly suspect God does still judge nations to this day. God did not destroy the Cannanites just because they were living somewhere where God had promised the Israelites could go, but because they were dangerous and callace and very very evil to the surrounding nations, and within themselves. 

[Eystein,]

Well I say shit happens, and that those particular Jews just needed a way to justify their evil, just like every other civilization has done up until this very day, including Cannanites (I've no doubt).

[Cameron Campbell]

First no one is truly superior to another. People need to accept that I am no worse or better than Obama. Why? Well, its simple and complex, but basically he is a human with power I am a human, the power should not make it so he is superior, now if I agree to an officer being my superior if he/she enforces laws that people agree with that is fine. So, no one should be truly superior. If you realise that then why would my beliefs be a problem unless I am trying to cause something harmful.

[Sammi L.]

I think this has been stated several times, but you can not define the actions of a person based on their philosophies. Not one concept is ever superior to another because essentially we are all always wrong in our own special ways.

[Eystein,]

I dissagree. Some concepts do obviously create or inspire more suffering than others. It's not all relative. Of course when it comes to the finetuning of a hypothetical perfect morality it's not easy to differentiate what's better and what's worse. That is because the eventual fallout will become less and less significant as you approach perfection. There are probably many ways of creating good moral societies for humans, but at least to me it is clear that there are many more ways to fail than there is to succeed.

[Kevin Edwards]

Being a moral relativist and a devil's advocate, let me just ask, what exactly do you mean when you say "inspire[s] more suffering than others"? What it seems from your context is that it distributes suffering across humanity fairly. This only opens up to the notoriously difficult task of defining what is fair.

[Eystein,]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, and it's hard to find good examples without resorting to the extreme, so let me do just that. For example the concept that certain men are born better than others and are therefor entitled to rule and judge, not by merit but by descent, have caused a lot of suffering compared to our society. And the Taliban view and treatment of women is also extremely harmful. Embezzlement, especially when it takes away resources designated to people who already have to little and you have more than enough.

 

 

[Kevin Edwards]

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you on this.

What I mean is that according to our perspective and in our current time these extremes are clear and almost universally accepted. However, if you were to ask Southern plantation owners they would probably say that their way of life was more fair because it allowed society in general to advance. While I have strong feelings that these extremes are wrong, I am not willing to say that my preferred system are objectively better at minimizing suffering.

[Eystein,]

No problem, I've been on Spring Break too ;)

 

Even if slave owners told themselves that, doesn't make it so. Whatever progress their ways may have brought forth, would only have served to benefit them and only marginally the lives of lesser free men. Globally speaking we have perhaps not progresses very far from slavery yet, since most tropical fruit and agriculture products are still harvested by underpaid plantation workers. Not to mention the inhumane working conditions in the manufacturing hubs of the developing world. The people who assembles our shiny new trinkets, and who contributes to the overall economic growth of their countries, can work their asses off without any hope of ever being able to afford a better future for their children, because the system doesn't grant them any social gratitudes for their service. That is immoral, regardless of how much it may benefit us and the advancement of our society.

 

It is possible to meassure these things objectively, although not with 100% accuracy. But the same thing applies to health and medicine. It's not exact sciences either, and by far and large you have rely on general statistics.

 

 

[Kevin Edwards]

Alas - there was no spring break for me. Just many project deadlines.

I completely agree with you that just because these hypothetical slave owners believed their way of life provided a better/the best way for society to proceed, that doesn't mean their way is even good. However, in the same way I would say just because you and I think that their way is inferior to ours in advancing society does not make us anymore right than they were.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

 I see no correlation between communism and theisim/atheism

It's not a correlation, its fact. The Communist manifesto specifically states that religion is an enemy of the communist state, that none of it is true, and that it should be removed.