Anti-theism ftw.

> ☭ Fokker wrote:

> > coffeeking wrote:

> atheism and satanism were killed because they are " the most damaging or destructive religion in terms of its principles, the way it treats its members or the way it treats non-believers etc. "

so tough nuggets all you educated hippos!<
_____________________

Aside from the strange insistence that Atheism, which by definition is a lack of religion in the same way that Asexual is by definition without sex (A-theism, A-sexual), I find the insinuation that Atheism and Satanism are damaging and destructive, and ask for proof.

For most atheists, they are also empiricists. Empiricism is also how they justify their lack of faith, and it can be damaging to society. The reason is that you can not justify a satisfactory moral code from empirical means, because empirical means can not identify the outcome we should pursue, only the means to reach it. Religion is a way to guide and decide what ends are appropriate and valuable regardless of the selfish opportunities we might exploit, and without religion or some abstract justification, humans are left to their own devices with respect to deciding what end to pursue. In a strictly empiricist society, a ruthless free for all with respect to goal attainment is justified. Now, a society of empiricist atheists may conclude that they need regulation and then lay down rules, but every member remains perfectly justified in exploiting other members or groups in a strategic opportunity. The only reason they can justify adhering to the rules is because the conditions are such that there is a strategic reason for cooperating, and if the circumstances changed they are also justified in breaching the terms of that contract. Secondly, a mad man can also justify exterminating the human species, because it's what he wants and there is no way to empirically derive a value system to say that he's wrong.

Now this does not mean an empiricist atheist would be this way, nor does it mean all atheists are empiricists. But atheists tend to be empiricists, and empiricism poses a big problem for morality. This doesn't mean that if everyone adhered to empiricism that some people would not have unjustified values left from religion or be limited by their empathy or attachments, but it justifies any end simply because someone chose it - power, exterminate humanity, killing minorities etc. Now I doubt that most people would pursue ends like those. I think most would be consistent with their social nature, but in the end I don't think people can cope with such ends as being anything but wrong. They want a value system to say it's wrong, and they need religion to say it's wrong. Religion also has other uses too.

In my opinion, religion may be a bunch of bs. However, it serves a very pragmatic purpose. It says that some ends are wrong and some are good.

@Justinian, well said; finally something where i dont have to disagree with you.

"the real question is, damaging and destructive compared to what? in essence, any human behaviour has the potential to be damaging to something or someone. should we compare atheism and satanism to for example's sake to catholicism, we'd soon notice that satanism and atheism would look like kids flying kites and catholicism would resemble a well-known historical leader waxing his moustache."

the first part i agree with, Athiests really havent been abnormally destructive compared to other religions but what has catholicism done? bring europe out of the dark ages? throughout history catholics have never been worse then their neighbors and have commonly been better then them.

"what has catholicism done? bring europe out of the dark ages? throughout history catholics have never been worse then their neighbors and have commonly been better then them."

Catholocism Plunged Europe into he dark ages first of all.  It was catholics saying sick people were possessed by demons and needed holes drilled in their heads.  It was Catholics who started the Inquisition, Catholics who started tying rocks to peoples legs and throwing them in a river, or tossing them off a cliff to see if they were witches.  These things stopped when a few well respected Catholics said, ok we're getting a little crazy here.  Being better than your neighbours isn't something to boast about when your neighbours are morally bankrupt.  It's like sayin you're a better person than Hitler, the bar's set so low the only way to not get over it is by being Satan himself.

And how has atheism been destructive?  Admittedly there is Russia and China but outside of power mad lunatics what has atheism done.

it was the fall of Rome that Plunged Europe into the dark ages.... if Catholics werent any worse then their neighbors, you cant criticize the religion, you criticize the environment.

atheism hasnt been overly destructive; there have been destructive atheists just like theres been destructive Catholics, Jews, Muslims, ect.

i am an atheist.   one of the common accusations i seem to face is the belief that "he who has no god, has no morals".  i think assuming atheism is destructive is just the way the believers find their logic in the justification against non-believers.

someone can easily be swayed....
example.
without god, there are two results in theory:

Atheist #1: "there is no god, so i dont have to worry about going to hell" therefore the result may be "destructive" behavior

Atheist #2: "there is no god, so since i connot be certain of an afterlife for myself, i shall make the best of the life i have" therefore resulting in possable good moral judgment.

imo, if every human on earth were to believe as atheist #2, the entire planet would be a better place to live.  however this will never happen because a higher power is part of the human condition.

ok, so with the 'it was christians who did...'

it was atheists in control of the communist ussr and ccp, who killed tens of millions.

is it that hard to comprehend...no, you just like to argue. hell, we all do

derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr? held back...renaissance.../gasp

who founded the first four universities of europe: oxford, salamanca. milan, and paris?

see, i understand where you're coming from, but plz try and realize, you've been spoonfed a WASP generalization that is a grievance to history.

Pfft, I'm an Atheist but it doesn't mean I go out raping and killing just because I'm not religious. Societies that existed long before Christianity had laws and morals.

Jesus Was Black!

"Except for Avogadro because apparently this obvious fact is meaningless because we are without God and therefore MUST be worse than Hitler, who first spoke of the notion of an Aryan Christ..."

what the hell are you smoking?

"
and no one in this thread yet has said that atheists cant have morals."

"except prison"

only when the law is what defines morally good...

"Except that some Christians believe, and are in fact taught, that with very few exceptions any sin can and will be forgiven.  So in essence they're taught they could, in theory, go out and kill 50 people and still get to heaven if they say sorry.  I know this because it's what I was taught before leaving the church.  Religion CAN give you a solid point to focus your morality but it can also produce some very frightening lines of thought."

what church was that?