I think that we have all heard of Pascal’s wager. If not, here’s a quick break down.
Christianity states that unbelievers will burn in hell for eternity. Whether Christianity is true or not, the wager of atheism will not be worth the possibility of eternal suffering in hell.
With that said, if we really had the choice to believe one or the other, what are the potential benefits of each decision? Personal benefits? Societal benefits? etc.
Hmm, that’s basically the situation we’re in now (well I am anyone, living in England and all). I prefer looking at the benefits if we just admitted that religion is a sham to control the masses and make them happy in their servitude for others cause they’re gona go to heaven where all their dreams are gonna come true.
A few plus points for an atheist society:
No more moral arguments which are “cause god says it’s that way, boo hoo, sob sob”, e.g. free discussion about contraception, abortion, lex talionis (eye for an eye).
Reduction of ignorance because of social taboos propogated by religions, e.g. open discussions about sex
Great reduction in wars, societal tensions, etc., only ideological conflict would remian.
Development of moralcodes that are more in line with modern life.
Reduction in expenses cause we won’t have to pay for priests, theologians, etc.
The only good religion does is in giving people comfort at times when loved ones die, and also the hope that there is something more then a substandard world. It can bring meaning to an otherwise meaningless life, or to put it another way it, people can find meaning in the mindless suffering too many have to put up with on a daily basis. I think it’s wrong to try to remove religion for the sake of it without an adequate replacement. But I don’t believe it can be replaced. Religion can console people better then any rationale argument ever could.
It was Marx that said, “Religion is the opiate of the masses.†I would never argue against the idea that religion is used to control people, as it is. But like the law is there to make people, better people then they might otherwise be, so is religion. If you won’t respect the law of the land, you might respect the words of God. If people only thought this life is it and there’s nothing more, I would say there would be more crime. As the poor would know, take it now or you’ll never have it. I would also think that Crime and punishment would regress back to an eye for an eye. As there would be no final judgement, so I might as well be God. That said people would fear the death penalty more.
To remove religion would make an interesting Darwinian experiment, as all the people that need a religion to live would be culled. You would be left with only those that don’t need a God. The question is would this improve society as a whole, as people might become more logically minded and wouldn’t need superstitions to follow laws or live a happy life. What defines the quality of life would have to change. There would be no more fundamentalists going around trying to kill everybody in the name of the non-existent. But, would it affect how charitable we are with one another. As there’s no point in giving away what we have, as there’s no external reward, only what we get out of it psychologically.
I think all world religions need to be reformed, but by their very nature this is impossible, it would require God to change his mind. But you’d still have your “fundies†going around cursing the world and their now change religion saying God doesn’t want it to be this way, we must kill all the non-believers!
While this might sound a little odd, I look forward to the day of the Antichrist. It will be very interesting to see what happens when finally religion and science square off knowing one must fall! Science is going to advance to the point where religion is just a hurdle to progression. To borrow a line from Highlander, “There can be only one!†The question is will we have a second dark age? Or will the neon light of science continue to glow?
Pax Vitae
I’m going to have to argue with Matt on this one. I’ll go step by step.
No more moral arguments which are “cause god says it’s that way, boo hoo, sob sob”, e.g. free discussion about contraception, abortion, lex talionis (eye for an eye).
No more moral arguements? That’s a rediculous statement. The idea that all arguements on morality are the result of the religious (Christians) vs. Atheists is inaccurate, but a common mistake. For even in more atheistic societies (or individuals) arguements will arise. The problem will be a total lack of moral objectivity.
If I live on a deserted island, and I kick a five year old child in the teeth for no good reason (as if a good reason exists), is that wrong? If yes: Why? If not then all hope for civiliztion is lost.
Reduction of ignorance because of social taboos propogated by religions, e.g. open discussions about sex
This I can agree with in part. However, it's important to realize that those social taboos are just that, social. Taboos about any number of issues exist in all societies. And our ideas on sex are formed not simply on religious (Christian) beliefs but on inate human insecurities.
Great reduction in wars, societal tensions, etc., only ideological conflict would remian.
It may reduce wars. It may not, it's hard to say. You must be warm benieth this blanket statement. It must be recognized that a LOT of good has risen from War and societal tensions. The American Civil Rights movement arose from the Christian idea that "all men are created equal" (which falls apart in an atheistic society). World War II, The US faught the Nazis under the same principal. According to Drawin's ideas of natural selection the Nazis were right. Put simply: Atheism cannot defend the individual rights endowed by the Creator.
Development of moralcodes that are more in line with modern life.
And what moral code might that be? Go back to the deserted island I mentioned above and try to prove that act was wrong without a God. If you can, let me know and I will bow at your feet and worship you, for only a deity can have such wisdom.
Reduction in expenses cause we won’t have to pay for priests, theologians, etc.
As far as I'm concerned this statement does not derserve a response. But what the hell, I'm feeling frisky. When's the last time you and the "we" had to pay for a theologian or a priest? If you actual do research on the topic you will find that both make far less than other professions and the amount is not substantial enough to make a real difference to the economy.
Anyhow that’s all I’ve got. I could go on, but I’m running out of time. Feel free to rebute these ideas. I love a good arguement and nothing you can say will offend me.
Take care.
~Dan
You have failed to grasp the point you’re arguing against. The original speaker was not talking about a final end to moral arguments, but an end to the phenomenon of moral arguments hitting a wall when one side of the debate chooses to bring up the argument of “cause god says so”, which is not a very constructive response really. As for the “lack of moral objectivity” - I don’t get it. Are you saying christian morals are objective and atheist morals aren’t?
Social taboos may be social but many christian sexual taboos are quite specifically christian. And obviously religion isn’t the sole basis for “our ideas on sex” but that’s hardly an excuse is it?
If you check, I think you’ll find that the US fought the Nazis in WWII because they were attacked by the Japanese who were allies of the Third Reich. Either that or they (you?) all had a collective attack of altruism just after Pearl Harbour.
It may be argued that a lot of good has come of war, though many would disagree as to whether it’s worth it. However, your next line of argument is quite reprehensible. Since when is it illegal for atheists to believe in equality? And on the basis of what perverse reading of Darwin do you claim that his ideas can be construed as a defence for Nazi ideals? Finally, the last sentence of your statement is not a simplified recap of the paragraph as it claims to be, but a statement of belief which you have not yet backed up at all.
I quote: “Is that wrong? If yes: Why? If not then all hope for civiliztion is lost.” Forgive me if I do not bow.
As far as I’m concerned this statement does not deserve a response. But that the Hell, I’m feeling frisky. Why should we pay for the upkeep of a religious apparatus which contributes nothing to our lives and serves ounly to promote outdated dogmatic taboos, self-righteousness and, apparently, muddled thinking (see above)? Because it doesn’t really make a difference to the economy! Hell, while we’re at it, why don’t we all chip in a bit and buy Defender a decent spellchecker. After all, it’s not like it would damage the economy, right?
Here we go.
+You have failed to grasp the point you’re arguing against. The original speaker was not talking about a final end to moral arguments, but an end to the phenomenon of moral arguments hitting a wall when one side of the debate chooses to bring up the argument of “cause god says so”, which is not a very constructive response really. As for the “lack of moral objectivity” - I don’t get it. Are youChristianhristian morals are objective and atheist morals aren’t
I have not failed to grasp anything. It looks as though you failed to grasp what I was saying. The point I’m imaking is that moral arguements all stem from something, be it religion, culture, or tradition. But the values and laws of western culture stem from judeo-Christian principals. It is only through an objective third party (God) that we can have an objective moral code. Atheism and moral objectivity cannot coexist in logical thought. So in an Atheistic society there may not be a “wall”, but that’s only because no one can say with any degree of certainty why ANYTHING should be wrong. Can you, from an Atheistic stand point prove ANY moral law?
+“And on the basis of what perverse reading of Darwin do you claim that his ideas cadefensenstrued as a defence for Nazi ideals? Finally, the last sentence of your statement is not a simplified recap of the paragraph as it claims to be, but a statement of belief which you have not yet backed up at all.”
Darwin taught that all life evolved through natural sellection, the strong destroy the weak and thus improve the species. Morality cannot factor into that concept logically, or with any objective reason. The Nazis simply believed they were superior and destroyed the jews based on their supremacy
The last statement I made is simple. Where would the American civil rights movement be without Lincolns words “all men were created equal”?
Inate equality is a moral concept and cannot be proven or argued with an Atheistic philosophy.
+“I quote: “Is that wrong? If yes: Why? If not then all hope for civiliztion is lost.” Forgive me if I do not bow.”
Cute, but You're avoiding the question.
+“As far as I’m concerned this statement does not deserve a response. But that the Hell, I’m feeling frisky. Why should we pay for the upkeep of a religious apparatus which contributes onlyng to our lives and serves ounly to promote outdated dogmatic taboos, self-righteousness and, apparently, muddled thinking (see above)? Because it doesn’t really make a difference to the economy! Hell, while we’re at it, why don’t we spell-checkera bit and buy Defender a decent spellchecker. After all, it’s not like it would damage the economy, right?”
When's the last time you had to pay to upkeep a religious organization? You cannot raise the flaws of religious organizations without acknowledging the good: Feeding homeless, building homes, and anti-substence abuse programs are just a few of the many benefits there are to faith based groups.
Logically in order for you to 1) judge their dogma (morality) and 2) claim they are self-righteous, you would have to believe you were in a position of moral or intellectual superiority. This is more than a little hypocritical.
Spell-checkers are free, and are included with most operating systems, or you can find them online as well. I didn't use one because I didn't have time. I'm not native to English, but that's a moot point and so is yours. Straw men anyone?
~Dan
A moral code anchored on god is only “objective” in the eyes of those who believe in him. Even if we ignore the difficulties arising from interpretation of god’s (to say the least) somewhat vague instruction to humanity, all that such a system would lead to is a situation where, instead of several moral systems in constructive debate, we have one which draws away from all criticism (including self-criticism) on the grounds that it is uniquely privileged in being the one true representation of an immaterial overlord’s will.
Any high-school student of evolutionary biology could tell you that this is a gross misrepresentation of Darwin’s theories. The idea that “the strong destroy the weak and thus improve the species” has no foundation in the theory (more like fact) of evolution. Had the Nazis wanted to destroy the jews in a Darwinian fashion they should simply have focused on outbreeding them.
Yet the concept amazingly seems to be universally accepted even among the atheists in our society. That innate equality cannot be proven in an atheistic philosophy I can agree to, but the same applies to the existence of god, so what do we gain from accepting his existence as an a priori that could not be gained by simply reaching a consensus on the equality issue? The only reason to bring him into the discussion is to try to engineer a situation in which by accepting equality, we must also accept him. This is hardly a compelling argument. Christianity does not have a monopoly on equality or morals.
I cherish the compliment, believe me, but it doesn’t detract from the obvious self-contradiction of your original post. Besides, I’m not avoiding the question at all: I find the argument about civilisation a lot more compelling than “Why? Because a big almighty man in the sky whom no-one has ever seen but who will punish you if you don’t agree with him says so”.
Last time I checked, most priests were not actively working full-time to help the homeless. Rather, they were preaching their own brand of quack immortality and getting paid for it at my expense. Oh, and living in a christian society I’ve been paying upkeep for the protestant church all my life through taxes.
If taking as the fundamental basis of your every idea and argument some fairy-story you choose to believe in the face of all available evidence simply because you heard it when you were a kid and don’t want to give it up doesn’t land you the intellectual low ground, I don’t know what does. Sorry, but it needs saying.
Any high-school student of evolutionary biology could tell you that this is a gross misrepresentation of Darwin’s theories.
I've studied evolution. But no matter which "theory" you prescribe to, morality has no place in evolution... What's natural MUST be good, because "evolution" knows best.
If taking as the fundamental basis of your every idea and argument some fairy-story you choose to believe in the face of all available evidence simply because you heard it when you were a kid and don’t want to give it up doesn’t land you the intellectual low ground, I don’t know what does. Sorry, but it needs saying.
It's not that my every idea is based on faith. But I am not going to accept something that seems to contradict the actions of most of humanity simply because it's the "popular" form of thought.
If I can see with my own eyes that there is evidence of intelligent design, that humanity seems to share a common sense of morality, then it's not a far leap to say that "who" or "what" created us, is intelligent and "good".
There's a lot of evidence contrary to the popular theory of evolution. And yet it's taught as near fact in most schools. And is generally accepted. It's one of the most common "faiths" in my opinion. And yet you believe it, because you were taught it in school.
Sorry,
I have yet to figure out the quote system. The above reply may take some deciphering.
~Dan
I have searched long and hard for arguments against evolution, unfortunatly all I have found are christian fanatics who set up their own unaccredited “university” and then award themselves “PhDs” and start calling themselves Doctors or professors. You can do that too, i get one email a week offering me a “university” degree for $5.
If you want a quick rebuttsal to any of the quack objections that have been thrown against evolution go to talkorigins.org
Especially useful are their faqs:
talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
In here you will also find a faq on how to merge your faith with a belief in evolution, though I personally don’t find it palatable.
In fact the intelligent design argument is perhaps one of the weakest you can throw against evolution, it is abudently clear there is no intelligent design, our organs fail, we grow old, we initially develop a tail when growing in the womb, we have a useless (and potentially lethal) appendix, plus thousands of other leftover bits from our previous evolution. Even our gentic code is packed full of useless information that never got taken out precisly because it’s all hit and miss rather than intelligent design. Why aren’t we telepathic? What need is there for diffeent languages? I mean the intelligent design argument was very common before Darwin, but as soon as his theories came out, most rational people who could divorce their thinking from religious dogma realised that it explains more than intelligent design does.
Guest was right when he said I meant the quote about morals differently. We don’t have to run wildly to god to find a grounding of morality. As an atheist you can take many stances, two major examples are kant’s categorical imperitive or Mill’s Utilitarianism. Both are grounded firmly in reason and are objecttive if you buy their arguments. There are problems with both systems, but that’s cause they’re still being thrashed out. It’s taken us this long to divorce ourselves from the word of god in order to start thinking rationally about why we should follow certain kinds of conduct and what is desirable for us all.
My sexual taboo statement was thrown specifically against the catholic church which had managed for 25 years to stop a cheap and effective method of making oneself infertile being given to Africans, as it believed that all forms of contraception were wrong. Instead these women had to suffer an intrusive and comparativly expensive, plus high risk operation in order for them to ensure they do not produce any more children as they already had as many (or more) than they could support. This tragedy has only recently been rectified. And all because thousands of years ago someone wrote a cetain passage that if interpreted in a certain way suggests that some almighty creator doesn’t support contraception. That to me was an evil act, commited by a “good” institution. Why did the Catholic church not speak out about the holocaust? They knew it was happening. They are also extremly rich, and yet do little to alleviate others suffering.
Be careful not to confuse “christian” charity for charity that would have happened anyway. Just because someone believes in God doesn’t mean that if they became an atheist they wouldn’t continue doing charity work through other non-religious charity organisations. there are plenty of Red Cross volunteers and they made a very big play over here about being non-religious by not decorating their stores at Xmas. In fact I would say that “Christian” charity, motivated purely out of religious beliefs but not by personal desire to help is a little like going through the motions. I don’t think that there would be anyone who performs acts such as setting up homeless shelters or drug-rehabilitation centres that wouldn’t have done it anyway. there are plkenty of Christians who don’t particpate in these things after all.
The spell checker comment was a bit of a cheap shot guest 
I’m sure I’ve made plenty of mistake and English is my first language!
Neither do I. After all, we all think in the same way and share most of our emotions and experiences. What would really surprise me is if this situation did give rise to a multitude of completely incompatible world views.
You said it yourself, morality has no place in evolution. The difference between evolution and God (ok, apart from the obvious difference) is that evolution does not aspire to being a standard for morals. What’s natural is not good, and neither is it evil. It just is. Evolution doesn’t “know” squat, it’s a blind process. It only explains why things ended up the way they are today. Deciding on good and evil is up to us.
A circular argument if ever i saw one.
So you can’t “prove” a moral system without god, but you can’t “prove” that god exists. That leaves us back at square one. How about we drop the whole hopeless project and just learn to live with the fact that yes, morals are and will always be subjective. With or without the Church.
No, I believe it because it explains, in one simple theory, so much about the world we live in, has been observed in action, tallies with all available evidence, and doesn’t seem to have any exceptions or unclear passages at all. Your argument that there’s “a lot” of evidence against it stumbles on the fact that you haven’t produced any, and neither has anyone else, though many have tried. Evolution is a textbook example of an idea that has been tried and tested, and proven sound.
Whereas the christian god theory is unprovable and undisprovable because there are no testable predictions to be made from it that can be falsified or verified. A classic case of circular reasoning, just like, say, communism, and one which can (and should) be done away with. It explains nothing, and it’s untestable. It has survived only because whereas scientists believe the evidence, clerics choose to believe despite the evidence.
lol, I thought this statement was hilarious. Ad hominem in it’s purest form. The worst of it is the fact that you(Guest) have tons of spelling mistakes all throughout your responses. Oh well, it just goes to show that if you don’t have a good response, ad hominem attacks can always add to the entertainment factor of the post.
Alright, so why is it that we need God to suggest that your actions were immoral? I am an atheist and I don’t believe in kicking little kids in the teeth, desserted island or not. How is it that God influenced my beliefs? Remember I don’t believe in God, so how do I follow the rules of someone whom has not given me any orders? I follow the innately instilled morals of my mind. Pleasure is good and pain is bad. Kicking a 5 year old kid in the teeth is painful, therefore bad. No need to bow, I feel it to be quite elementary.
The problem with religion, however, is if the Bible, for instance, told you to kick a 5 year old kid in the teeth, you would, despite the fact that rationality would tell you differently. As an example, the inquisition of the Catholic church.
I am with both Pax and Matt on this one and I couldn’t agree more. Imagine a world where religion no longer held our minds hostage and allowed us to think for ourselves. Imagine how we might act if we all believed that we only had one life to live. We might actually do something worthwile with it.
Another question for you guys, how might we begin to move towards a less religious society? What are the factors that promote enlightenment and rationality? Basically, how do we get rid of religion? (of course, that is without using forceful tactics)
peace,
-Skep
I would say society is already moving in that direction, and it’s only a matter of time before religion runs its course. There will always be religions and spirituality; humanity has a need to feel as if there is something greater. Whether there is something greater or not is another question. Because as long as there are questions like: Where do we come from? Is the mind a form of spirit or just a chemical reaction? Do we live after death? Is there more to the world than what we can see with our five senses?
Until people stop asking these questions or they become answered, religion will always have a foothold on peoples mind.
Pax Vitae
I’ve just noticed that another poster on this board is also using the name “Guest”. I’d therefore like to point out that the Guest of this topic thread and the Guest of the rest of the forum are not the same. Sorry about any confusion caused.
Well, maybe you should register then, it only takes an email addy, not only that but regular posters can sometimes appear as guests when they forget to login in or there’s a slight glitch in the posting. You can also have your computer log u in everytime then.