There’s no posting limit. If you think that the deities have granted to humanity something that is undeniably their creation and also undeniably bettered the lot of mankind on Earth, then present it.
Personally I would argue that the greatest achievements in the world towards improving the lot of mankind on Earth, are not linked to the all-knowing deities. Rational human thought, as argued out on paper, is what created everything good. If you believe that the mass decrease in the infant mortality rate is thanks to God/Amaterasu/Thor/Vishnu, or whoever, please make that argument.
Ahem. This is vastly different than your OP which was about religion, the man made construct. Moving the goalposts this late in the thread doesn’t help you at all.
And this is where I think the whole argument becomes misguided. In most theist worldviews God is responsible for all of creation. So without God there would be no humanity, and no world to improve. The whole question that you are positing seems to rely on God not having done much in the world, when to the theist the world is only there to begin with because of God.
So to turn your example back on itself, if God created humanity, then he created our rational thinking minds. Thus God is responsible for the things that those minds create. If we devise ways to reduce infant mortatility, God not only created the minds that were capable of doing. So ultimately God is responsible for all. Just because God chooses to not do everything in a dramatic, disordered way does not necessarily mean that he is not behind something. To the theist humans could do nothing without God and therefore there is no human achievement that does not require God as a source.
On another level I wonder if you want to know if religion has resulted in any good at all, or whether it has resulted in “enough” good. If you mean any good at all, then lots of religions have resulted in good things. If you mean “enough” good, then I think that something we can’t argue objectively without some idea of just how much good is “enough”. Moreover without some sort of objective standard of what is good to begin with, and how good and evil can ranked relative to each other, I fail to see how the question has any real objective meaning. We could each give our subjective opinions (mine is that religion has bettered the world BTW) but without an objective basis for our positions all we have is opinions.
So what basis of good and evil did you have in mind when you wrote the OP?
In support of Atheists: There is no Atheist Organization that I know of, and how do you know how much Atheists give to their community just because they do not advertize it doesn’t mean they do not give.There are some Atheists who give and some Religious people who don’t, it is just that Atheists are in the minority.
Many Scientists are Atheists and have done more for mankind helping them to have a healthier life and many of the things used to make life easier. Religion has little to do with making the world a better place it is the individual if they have compassion or not. Some religious people are willing to kill others because of their beliefs and have, that doen’t make religion bad or that Atheists are bad either. As a matter of fact most of the Atheists I know are jut as caring (if not more so) then some of the fanatics. Look to the Crusades and what the Radical Muslims are doing now.
Perhaps if they taught or supplied the people with Birth control so they could practice responsible parenthood there would be less starvation. And there are people who are not religious who also contribute to helping them. Why bring a 5th child into the world when one has 4 starving?
It is quite true that Science is responsible for the technology that brought forth the Atom Bomb, but it was a Christian President who used it. Also a born again Christian who got us into an unnecessary war with Iraq, and used modern warfare. Christians say they believe Jesus, but when it comes to some things He said, they do differently, like turning the other cheek. Common sense comes first.
People have been killing each other with or with out religion since Cain and Abel, and continues even to this day. Strange enough, the Conservatives are for the use of guns, more than the Liberals.
My history might be off, but didn’t the revolutionaries of France abolished it there in 1791? And weren’t they atheist? (Ok, it might have been they were more just A-whatever-the-aristocracy-were but that doesn’t change the date)
On another note; I just recently moved to Dallas, TX from Chicago, IL and I must comment on just how NOT so different the [liberal-leaning] attitudes of my neighbors are. Admittedly, our building consists of pretty well educated and cosmopolitan young professionals so the sample size is possibly skewed more left than the state in general (but I know for certain most of them are Christians - they seem to mention it more here - and I haven’t yet been threatened for being an atheist) :).
This is somewhat beside the point that I was trying to make. From the OP it seemed that Sage Rat was trying to set up a dichotomy between “science” and “religion”, and how science was obviously the superior. I just wanted to point out that “science” in of itself gives us nothing, that people applying science (as you recognise) is how things happen. Therefore the dichotomy is a false one, and the question is non-sensical from the start.
As to whether atheists are better or worse than religious people, I think the whole question is unanswerable. The reasons I think so are:
Fundamentally you need an understanding of what “good” is to make the judgement. Such understandings are shaped by your worldview, and therefore all judgements are biased towards your own worldview. This is true whether you are an atheist or religious. For the question to have objective meaning there must be an objective basis for it, and unless we all agree on objectively what good is, then we don’t have that.
Even if we could rank the relative goodnoss of individual acts, there is no objective way to determine who belongs to what group.
Arguably the greatest monsters of the 20th century, in terms of their disregard for human life and the suffering they caused were the communists like Stalin, Pol Pot and others. If we were going to count them in our tally, then since communism is expressly a form of atheism (that is, belief in communism directly contradicts belief in God) then the crimes of communism are much more atheist crimes then religious crimes. However in these discussions you will always get people who claim that Stalinism and the like is actually a religion, and therefore not the result of atheism. Or someone will claim that while the communists were atheists, they didn’t slaughter millions because of their atheist beliefs, so they don’t count. Of course at the same time these people are eager to add to the religious tally anything even incidentally involving religion.
Generally it is impossible to tell exactly what motivates someone to do something, and how their actions would change if they believed something different. Without that knowledge you can’t even construct lists of the effects of different beliefs.
All that being said though, in my opinion the effects of religion are mixed. I think certainly some religions have had serious negative impacts on the societies that harbour them. However I think the influence of Christianity in Western history has largely been a positive force for good. And while it is just my opinion I think that the bombastic sort of statements that religion has never resulted in anything good is pretty clearly over the top and indefensible.
It may be worth noting that the only evil deed atheism can inspire is attacks on religious people because they’re religious. Unlike most religions, atheism simply lacks other talking points to oppose people on or to act on.
You really know practically 0 about Agrarian economics huh? People in agrarian societies have more children because they expect many of them to die and so they are playing the odds, and also big families are less likely to starve than small ones because they can farm more and better.
Because atheism doesn’t tell anyone to do anything, and religion does; nor does atheism make moral judgements, and religion does. Atheism can’t motivate you to do anything, good or bad; religion motivate people to do things all the time.
The Communists killed people because they were Communists, killing the followers of rival beliefs. Just as Christians have for millennia; in fact Communism and Christianity have a lot of similarities. If the Communists hadn’t been atheists they would still have killed people because their ideology demanded it.
And if atheism is the cause like the believers like to insist, why are they stuck either bringing up the Communists, or lying and claiming that people like the Nazis were atheists? If it’s atheism and not Communism that’s the problem, why aren’t non-communist atheists running around killing and oppressing people like the believers do?
I’ll have a go at persuading you of this one. To say that atheists do what they do because of their atheistic beliefs (or lack of belief), is like saying that theists do what they do because of their theistic belief. Both are silly. A Christian doesn’t go out and do what they do because of their theistic belief - that a god exists - but because of their Christian belief, and all that entails. To give the usual other suggested side, the Crusaders didn’t go out and kill because of their conviction that a god existed - they did so because of their conviction a god existed, and that means… The simple consideration of a god, or gods existing, or not existing, isn’t going to motivate anyone - there has to be more to it than that, a religion, a philosophy, a viewpoint. So it is, as I see it, unfair to lay the responsibilty for the actions of atheists at the feet of atheism, just as it’s unfair to lay the actions of theists at the feet of theism. We need to look at the particular religions and philosophies of people because that’s the place motivation comes from.
So a line should be drawn between the crimes of atheists - which your examples certainly are - and crimes of atheism, which i’d argue they aren’t.
Agree with everything you said, but what happens around here is that all Christians get lumped together when there is no basis to believe that Jesus would have supported to the Crusades based on what he said. That was all the Catholic church, and it is generally ignored that there was a secular reason that was more important than the religious one. They basically saw that the feudal lords were going to kill people no matter what, so they decided it would be better to kill the Muslims than to tear apart Christendom killing one another.
Well the argument that atheism wasn’t a big part of the violence committed by communists is just silly. I agree other atheists shouldn’t be held responsible for the actions of communists, but to argue that atheism wasn’t a big part of Stalinism/Leninism is to miss the point.
Religion is more important in developing identity than it is in getting people to act out against a perceived foe. It’s not so relevant what your religion is, it’s relevant that you are at war with the neighboring tribe. The religion just tells you who is on which side. If it weren’t Muslims and Christians fighting over Iberia in the 8th century it would’ve been someone else just as it was Gaul’s vs Romans or Romans vs Carthaginians in that neck of the woods before it was Christians and Muslims.
I’ve unfortunetly little knowledge of politics from around then, so i’ll refrain from trying to argue on that last particular point.
The problem with looking at particular philosophies is the question of at what point can we generalise? If, say, a particular Christian does an act, at what point is it reasonable to point the finger at Christianity as a whole, or his particular sect, or particular church, or even his own singular viewpoint. I agree it’s unreasonable to point to the Crusades and say, “Here, this is an event stemming from Christian thought” in anything other than shorthand, simply because Christian thought encompasses a pretty wide range of ideas.
But being a part of the overall concept doesn’t mean we lay the blame for particular acts motivated by the overall concept at its specific feet. To go with possibly a terrible analogy, if we take the U.S. Constitution as an overall concept, we can say that the Second Amendment is a vital part of the whole - to remove that part wouldn’t be a minor change, but a change that alters the whole concept. However, when a person goes unmolested for a particular act of unpleasant free speech, as a result of the whole concept, that doesn’t mean that we can lay the reasoning and motivation for the decision not to lock them up at the feet of the Second Amendment. Part of a whole can be necessary to the whole being what it is, but that doesn’t mean that something created by the whole is necessarily motivated by that part.
I disagree. Yes, what you say is true to a point, but the question is; why is there fighting? What is being fought over? Something of value. And religions, as well as atheistic philosophies, provide further definitions of that which is valuable. It would be unreasonable to point to a conflict and say that no additition of or removal of groups would alter the existence, intensity, or type of conflict whatsoever; yes, philosophies can be an “excuse” for something else, but they can also provide the actual reason behind, on occasion.
Well uniting people against a common enemy is a familiar theme in all of history.
If you are willing to look at individuals, sects, and churches then you are going a lot farther toward granularity than most people who criticize Christianity. I think it’s fair to say that a particular sect acts a certain way when they behave in a certain way. The problem with Catholicism in medieval Europe is that it’s not just a religion it’s a whole civilization and runs across a lot of the same sorts of problems that other Empires have throughout history. It makes a whole lot more sense to compare Catholic Europe in the twelfth century to other historical Empires than it is to compare them to say, Modern Pentacostals who have never held political authority. They had more in common with the Mughal or Sassanid Empires than they do with modern Evangelical Protestant sects.
Right, it means pretty much anything mainstream coming out of Europe for a period of about a millenium between from Constantine into the Enlightenment.
Would you find it silly if I said that the Constitution was evil because it made us nuked Hiroshima and Nagasake?
And I agree with you, altering parts of the whole often change the whole category. For instance Prosperity Theology, ‘Jesus wants you to be successful.’ (read as rich most of the time) when there is a scriptural basis for saying that Christ actually wanted you specifically not to be rich. It’s hard to say though because a lot of what he said was going out to the apostles who were supposed to be ascetic monks spreading the gospel. Does that mean that Jesus wanted EVERYONE to be ascetics or just them?
I only sort of understand what you are getting at here so I’ll wait for clarification.
Yes, but when you pick and choose what people say the results can run the gamut from comedic to tragic. ‘I come not to bring peace but the sword.’, is that a metaphorical sword meaning that he will divide people along strict ethical lines that will divide them irrevocably from their kin? Or does that literally mean go forth and kill? Without taking the whole into context one can read, “Go forth and kill.”, from a few of Christ’s sayings, but when taken literally in context it doesn’t make much sense. It’d be like cherry-picking Martin Luther King referring to the ‘fight’ for equal rights and thinking he meant literally go out and crack skulls. It’s obvious that he didn’t, and it was clear in his own time that this was the main divide between him and the (ironically) Muslim Malcolm X. There is a lot more scriptural basis in Islam for waging war, but even there, there is a huge amount of scholarship hotly debating the meaning of Jihad and Malcolm himself came back from his Hajj and embraced the Satyagraha message of Martin Luther King.
To me saying that Christ’s message was about hate and destruction is like me trying to blame Gandhi because I went out and killed someone because Martin Luther King told me to fight.
Usually what is being fought over is something economic. In the case of the Crusades it was trade routes and and the resources of the land. It is my understanding that during the Crusades the land of that area was far more fertile and less desertified than it is today, though I could be wrong.
As for this bit:
I’m not saying that at all. I am saying that the fighting would be over different things for different reasons and by different means but there would still be fighting.
The reason Christianity is so interesting in terms of this debate is specifically because it addresses the idea of ‘things of this world’ as being the source of evil. It claims that mankind has a violent and animal nature that can only be tempered and made holy by God’s grace through the practice of a true faith. It could be argued that Christians are violent despite being Christians, precisely for this reason, as the entire point of Christianity is to gain a spiritual perfect love.
The modern liberal conception of religion in my opinion is flawed, because it looks at Religion as a clearing house of ideas, a set of opinions that make up the religion. But as I understand religion, it is a practice, and not a store of ideas. Generally the people who are venting about ideas are missing the point. Christianity requires one central idea, that you keep your eye on the prize, Jesus, and allow that to lead you through acts of grace. And it is the acts of grace that reform you, remold you into a better person. I think even a secular person can agree that if you do good works, you will become a better person as a result. So to me the argument that religion makes people do bad things leaves out the possibility that the religion has very high expectations that most people fail. Some people look at the failure to be a true Christian as though all of those failures are the normative Christianity. It leaves out the idea of mastery. I use the Kung Fu master analogy a lot. No one disrespects Kung Fu because so few Kung Fu practitioners achieve mastery and Kung Fu has been directly responsible for A LOT of violence in China. Different Kung Fu sects warred against each other regularly.
To me the history of civilization is one long shlog through the mud, and I don’t think we’re out of it, no not even you enlightened liberals. In Martial Arts they say that your training really begins when you become a black belt. Before that it is just learning the basics. Well, we as a civilization have yet to become black belts, we are still learning the basics, so being angry at a religion that attempted to bring people up out of the mud is missing the point.
People kill because they are ignorant and mistrustful mud people, they pervert any ideology into an excuse to go out and kill the ‘other’. Neither Christianity or Communism is a violent and hateful ideology, but much killing has been attributed to them.
God wills that we reclaim the means of production!
What it shows is that neither basic belief in God or basic non belief in God says anything about a persons belief system and the morals that cause them to act a certain way toward their fellow man. Either a believer or a non believer can be a good person or murderous scum. Whatever the switch is in our make up that decides is not specifically linked to either one.
I think I mostly agree.
I agree that there are many flavours of theism (Xianity, Judaism, Islam, ect) just as there are many flavours of atheism (Communism, Randiam objectivism, existentiallism, ect) and that different flavours do contain contradictory elelments. And I also agree when we talk of the effects of a view we should talk of the individual flavours, and not the while class.
The problem is that people insist on lumping all of the theist views, or worse still all religious views into one whole, often combining all of the most objectionable parts, even when logically they couldn’t all be held at once. Thus you can count any and every negative action of any person of that group as proof of the destructiveness of the belief. At the same time it is held that each atheist is an individual unique snowflake and that the actions of other atheists have no bearing on the value of atheism.
This is simply inconsistent, and would also be inconsistent if someone tried to compare their particular theist beliefs against all of atheism.
And this is my point. Talking about what “religion” has done verses what “atheism” or worse still “science” has done is simply meaningless. Perhaps you could compare particular beliefs, say Mormonism Vs Randian objectivism, but you can’t talk of these things as one homogenous mass, as the people who make these types of arguments are wont to do.
I agree pretty much up to the last statement. Many things motivate people to act. A god in itself is not necessarily a motivator but following a god’s purported rules is. Religion is just one motivator among many (ideologies are motivators); atheism is not an ideology so it isn’t a motivator in itself. As an ideology, religions purport a set of rules/beliefs its followers should/must adhere to and, by implication, is an active, extrinsic motivator. (Now that some people will use better judgment and realize that some of these rules are unacceptable is yet another motivator at work)
I just don’t see how NOT believing in something is a strong extrinsic motivator, it just isn’t an ideology… Communists didn’t kill opponents because of a lack of a belief in a god, they had another such motivator (i.e. conflicting ideologies)
I’m waiting to see someone convicted of a murder because they didn’t believe in unicorns…
So if atheists make no moral judgements are you saying that all atheists are amoral? In other words do you think that Dostoyevsky was right when he wrote “If there is no God then all things are permissable”.
And anyway, if atheists make no moral judgements, that means they can’t judge religions and religious people immoral. So all your ranting about the evils of religion is what exactly?
False. Depends what replaced their atheism. Not everyone wants to kill their rivals. Communism doesn’t necessarily lead you to kill your enemies as a matter of first principles. One of the reasons that they acted the way they did was that in communism the good of the collective outweighs the good of in the individual. Therefore maintaining the collective state outwieghs the life of the individual. If communists adopted a theistic belief with a high value on the individual it may have lead them to kill fewer people. That is just speculation, but it is clearly false that everyone wants to kill their opponents.
Why do atheists keep bringing up the crusades or the inquision? I mean if we are talking shelf life here, then it is not the religious people who have to worry.
In Martial Arts they say that your training really begins when you become a black belt. Before that it is just learning the basics. Well, we as a civilization have yet to become black belts, we are still learning the basics, so being angry at a religion that attempted to bring people up out of the mud is missing the point.