MrBubbles said:
im_sneaky said:
MrBubbles said:
dib8rman said:
MrBubbles said:
the point didnt seem to be that stalin was killing people because he was atheist. just that he was an atheist and did that. which is the topic. atheism and morality. stalin being an atheist and showing a lack of morals is a perfectly fine argument for him to make.
|
What? So your saying because he was Atheist and commited murder that Atheists have morals in line with mass murder or genocide?
Dude, Stalins morals were fine, if the Russians had won that is. I remember a bit of the cold war, I remember how much the Russians hated England and the US anything not Russian, the US hated the Russians almost as much. This hate came from Nationalism, a conflict of values.
Here's a touch of history without any bias.
1. Stalin replaced Lenin and was much more brutal than Lenin.
2. Stalin wanted to keep USSR as one country and saw the Ukraine as a place of potential issues in that agenda.
3. Stalin Captured and or killed Scholars, Artists, Culturalists and Religous members (Around 6000 of them) The reason he did this was to null media and begin his propoganda machine. This had nothing to do with morals, this was about defence, his nationalistic pride. It's the equivilent of a burglar getting into your house and you using deadly force. Maybe this burglar had no intent of harming anything at all who knows. The morals of that situation isn't up for arguement, it's the same thing except USSR was the house and Stalin used deadly force on a new value system.
4. Stalin starved about 6 million people (I think, can't really remember) Then said you kill 1 man it's a tragedy but kill a million and it becomes statistic. Out of context that sounds immoral but in context morals have little to do with that.
Judging his actions from an arm chair just seems like a waste though, what he did was atrocious to the average person but to the people carrying it out, he did it for the betterment of the USSR the Russians carried this sentiment even to the 80's.
Now it's easy to point the finger at one guy but he had a whole population that agreed with what he was doing to the Ukraine, this is the source of the answer to "why" the answer is Nationalism. Not morals and definetly not Atheism.
|
my position is that there are not many atheists that can be held up as examples of good morals(even two that someone brought up appear to be only agnostics that atheists seem to be essentially hijacking). So if people can only name "bad" atheists then people will assume that atheists arent moral. With more prominent clearly upstanding atheists then people wouldnt generalize atheists as having no morals or being immoral.
the other person brought up high profile atheists who do not have a good morals. i would probably argue that those individuals are amoral. Someone mentioned that atheists actually have a better moral code, so i guess he believes those people are immoral and essentially evil(since they know right and wrong but are willfully choosing to act wrongly). I couldnt tell you whether or not either feel it reflects poorly on atheists as a whole.
In my personal experience, most of the atheists ive known (and no im not saying all atheists are this way) tend to be bitter and hate god, rather than reaching the decision that god doesnt exist through a logical thought process. It doesnt even seem a rational position to me. I can understand an agnostic "god probably doesnt exist" point of view... but to be so absolutely positive about something unknowable...(even religious people can claim personal experience that affirms their belief, but what situation would someone have to prove that He doesnt exist)
I hope this answers your question.
|
Interesting. What do you mean that most atheists hate God? It seems irrational for anyone to hate the source of all good in the universe. Did you actually mean that or were you trying to say something else?
|
Their belief that "god does not exist" isnt actually about god not existing. (its not something they would admit to but it comes through in discussions). Obviously they wouldnt feel that god is a source of all good. Perhaps, for example, they have had a rough life and therefore feel abandoned by god...or perhaps a bad experience within their religious structure. They developed an animosity towards their perception of god which results in "god doesnt exist"
|
Err... I don't believe in God (being polite and putting capitals and all) becuase the evidence clearly shows that God - at least as defined in any of our current religions - doesn't exist. No hate, no annimosity. I don't believe in God in the same way I don't believe the moon is made of cheese.
I suspect the animosity you mention is the frustration some atheisits feel at what, from their point of view, is willful ignorance. It's important to understand that if you're really an atheist, you're in the position of knowing the moon isn't made of cheese, and wondering why a bunch of otherwise inteligent normal people keep insisting it is despite the evidence it isn't. Clearly, this can get on your nerves after a while.
I think you're making pretty big and inherently false claims here.
Again, there is simply no need - and indeed no observable link - between Morality and Religion.
Some of the most religious people on Earth molest small children, steal, cheat and murder. Some of the most religious people are kind, warm, open and would never hurt a fly.
Some atheists abuse small children, steal, cheat and murder. Some atheists are kind, warm, open and would never hurt a fly.
We are what we are and how we behave outside of religion. As Highwaystar points out, we simply (pattern loving animals that we are) like to ascribe meaning, often hitting on what is known, in scientific cricles, as False Positives.
Examples of these would be observing that some people give to charity and are religious; conclusion, religious people are more charitable and therefore more moral. This is a false positive.
Plenty of athesits give to charity. I do. I have direct debits set up to four charities right now. More or less iin terms of percentages right now is s a temporary thing. In 100 years there might be more atheists giving to charity than religious people, 100 years ago there might have been more religious people giving to charity. These things change in line with population, culture, religious belief and many other factors.
Heck, there's even plenty of good reasons - and evidence - that morals are a clear result of evolution coupled with inteligence, awareness and certain social behaviours. For example, to look at one simple one, if you are a animal that is going to operate in tribes requiring cooperation, then morals are pretty handy things to have. Working together, looking out for each other the tribe survives better than lone individuals hence through both breeding and social pressure from the tribe morals behaviour in strenghtened over time as preferrable.
We are just animals at the end of the day. Socially, I'd argue the most complex on the Earth. We are also, almost certainly the most self aware and the most intelligent. Morals make sense for us to have and to emply and it is perfectly possible to look to other primate species (and other social animal networks) to see how they could easily evolve and be renforced.
As ever, Relgion is taking the stance that it magically brought something into being or is its root cause. Here is how to behave! People only behave because they are religions!
In reality, such behaviours evolved with us and our society as well as emerging from our increasingly complex social evolution which requires a moral framework to even function at all.
