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.

[運命]

im sorry, i didnt want to start an argument. i can see where youre coming from, and the only reason i said something back wa sbecause i thought thet you were respondin gto what i said, and no offense, but the way you said it was kind of mean. im really am sorry. :(

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You are so RIDICULOUS! Of course the Pope said they were burned for  "heresy" not "burned because he/she was scientist"

You are missing the point. None of the heresy's mentioned in the deaths of these people had anything to do with science. What me and Wayne are asking you is to prove to us that the Catholic church stomped on scientists by providing examples of heresies based on scientific understandings of the world.

[運命]

this discussion is kind of discriminating because no matter how you respond,
you always make someone mad. what would happen if you said both are
just fine and dandy? would both sides be mad? would no one care? it really
is unfair. sorry to both sides if i offended you at all. i didnt mean it, honest.

[Wayne Dirac]

Its cool, I don't think anyone is mad. You haven't offended anyone. At least, I am not offended at all. Don't be afraid to voice your opinion, but realize that if you come to a debate forum people will tell you why they think you are wrong, but you have every right to say why you think they are wrong.

[John Eric Tiessen]

Don't worry, offending people is part of the way society makes progress. Look at Martin Luther and the 95 theses. He horribly offended the catholic church but his statements lead to a more open and liberal Europe. Granted the ensuing wars killed thousands, possibly millions! However, our society wouldn't be the same without his ideas.

[Vancea L. Domide]

So, I said that there is no difference between "give me your money or I'll kill you" and "give me your money or you'll go to hell".

In both cases money are obtained by threatening people.

Thieves and criminals in the name of religion cannot redeem themselves by giving some stolen money to scientists or not killing scientists, artists, writers etc. for offending religion.

Vertigo one mentioned that religion can be "scientific" then said that even if in the Catholic list of the murdered scientists are just a few scientists, there were ones who were murdered for religious insubordination to the Catholic religion.

Vertigo, you shamelessly are contradicting yourself. If religion can be "science" and in the list of murdered people I gave you, are some with another religious views, then all were scientists - religious scientists or other sciences.

When you affirm that something is false you have to backup your affirmations. You are just avoiding learning the truth by directing the discussion to irrelevant points. You even failed to sustain your confused starting posts by going erratically to atheism-anti-theism, communism, morality, sacred, beliefs, history, etc.

You don't even know how to rise a point and you don't even accept that some of your opinions are actually automatically "echo" of your religious mentors.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Vertigo, you shamelessly are contradicting yourself. If religion can be "science" and in the list of murdered people I gave you, are some with another religious views, then all were scientists - religious scientists or other sciences.

I did not say religion IS science. I said religion and science do not necessarily contradict.

[Vancea L. Domide]

I know exactly what I read from one of your past posting. I cannot find it right now, however you still have this "idea" that religion equates science.

Some religious fanatics go even to say that there is a religion of science or science of religions.

Even if in Science you say "I believe", in this "I believe" there is NOT faith.This "I believe" in science is more like "I think".

Faith does NOT ask for scientific research or facts. In faith do don't have to think.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Faith does NOT ask for scientific research or facts. In faith do don't have to think.

That's absurd. Of course you have to think when studying religion. Religious people do not abandon their minds. They too look at evidence and other issues like that. To say religious people don't think is stupid and insulting.

[Jackalope Joe D'Antonio]

Okay, this is why I as an atheist do good. I realize that our miserable time on this miserable speck of dust in the universe. We are going to be miserable for most of our lives, with some sparse moments of moderate joy and perhaps one or two moments of true joy. The reason I help someone who has fallen over, or give money to those who need it is because I feel that it is my duty, because I live a moderately decent life, to attempt to make life less miserable for all those around me. This is all we know we have, we should all try to make it as enjoyable as possible for the most people possible. If theists really want to make the world a better place or really want a meaning to their lives, they need to stop trying to make the invisible (nonexistent) man in the sky happy, and work to make their fellow man happy. Because if all they do is focus on avoiding hell through praying to a nonexistent entity, those next to them will be forced to live through hell.

[Jackalope Joe D'Antonio]

Now I am going to address the point made about communism. THIS POINT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANT AND NO PLACE IN A PHILOSOPHICALLY DEEP DISCUSSION! That is a point that theist after theist throws into an argument because they want to distract people from the main point. It happens constantly. I try to debate with someone about why I am an atheist and why others need to take a real look at the religion they follow to make sure they really believe it and the person on the other side just throws in "(evil person) was an atheist". They do not use this point to bolster their argument, they just let it fly and all of those who were going to take something thoughtful out of the debate are stuck thinking, "(evil person) was an atheist, and so was (other evil person). I guess there is some correlation." This point is completely and totally unwarranted and false. What religion a person associates with has nothing to do with how they live their lives. Stalin was an Atheist for example, but his Atheism did not effect him more than banning religion from the USSR. It did not cause him to be the person he was, nor would a faith in god have stopped him. Even if this was an even slightly valid point, all I have to do is name a more evil person who was a religion and I win. Hitler was Christian, Rommel was Christian, the inquisitions were Catholic, Saladin was Muslim, I can continue but will not because I think my point is very clear. No religion is without its evil doers, yet some how the evil that atheists do is shackled on us all simply because we force people to question the man in the sky, and question what they want to be true. No matter how much a person wants the man in the sky to exists he will not, but people simply don't want to have a thoughtful discussion about it.  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

They do not use this point to bolster their argument, they just let it fly and all of those who were going to take something thoughtful out of the debate are stuck thinking, "(evil person) was an atheist, and so was (other evil person). I guess there is some correlation." This point is completely and totally unwarranted and false.

You've completely and fundamentally misunderstood the point there.

There are two main reasons that theists bring up the example of Stalin and Mao et al as Athiests who do horrible things

1. There are too many athiests who make the argument that somehow the idea of Christianity is responsable for the crusades. If there are athiests who say Christianity is evil because it "caused" the crusades, there will be Christians who say Athiesm is evil because it "caused" the purges.

2. They bring it up to highlight an important distinction between Athiesm and Christianity. Unlike in Christianity, Athiesm has no allowence for moral code. Thus, athiests cannot criticise Stalin because they have no authority upon which to base moral judgements. They can say "Well, I think Stalin was awful because of X reasons that I believe in", however the problem with that argument, whatever the reasons are, is that Stalin had his own reasons also, and without an external point of reference, neither side can call the other "right" or "wrong". This highlights a big danger with athiesm. The lack of true moral accountability it allows for.