| sapphi_snake said: Currently, atheists in Western society often bash religion from a moral standpoint; the Crusades, Jihad, Hitler, etc... Where did they acquire these moral values? The Roman Republic wouldn't have necessarilly thought of Hitler as a terrible person - but the Christian morality sees people like Hitler as terrible - and it is this Christian morality that they view the world with. Without religion as a basis, what objective viewpoint do they haver to criticize Hitler, the Crusades, or Jihad on? For all that they were doing at the time is what served their will to make themselves into the best possible people they could possibly be - but the Christian morality realizes this is wrong - and it is also the basis for the morality which top atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens use as a foundation for why religion is bad. Ummm, you are aware that the Crusades and the Jihad were conflicts fueled by religion, no? (and from one POV, Hitler's movement had religious roots too) Christians were the ones who led the Crusades, and they certainly didn't see them as immoral when they led them (not to mention it's generally atheists who stress the immorality of the Crusades; other than the looting of Constantinopole, I've never heard any christian refer to the Crusades as being 'immoral'). The Catholic Church wouldn't have found someone like Hitler to be too terrible in the past (heck, they did things far worse than Hitler to non-christians and non-catholics). As for the morality issue, read some philosophy books. Plus, since religion is false, it certainly makes a poor foundation for 'objective morality'. Religion is bad because it's immoral, because it results in immoral actions. |
Not only have you committed a fallacious argument here, but you have also accused all Christians of being fundamentalists - that's bigotry on your part. You have also neglected to challenge my core argument which is essentially this: The moral values of the western world are based in Christianity.
* Why your argument is falacious - you accuse Christianity of being immoral because it fueled the Crusades which occurred between 720 and 915 years ago:
-The ideal of atheism was one of the chief fuels for the Communist revolutionary wars throughout much of the Eurasian continent during the 20th century.
-The ideal of Patriotism and National spirit fueled World War I, II, and the Prussian wars in my own country - also a spirit strong in the United States today.
-The ideal of Capitalism fueled the Congolese massacre in the 19th and 20th century where workers had their loved ones (wives and children) held captive, and if the men of the family didn't gather enough rubber, their women and children would have their hands cut off. The massacres involved 10.5 million deaths all so Belgians could become wealthy. It also fueled the Boer War which saw genocide against the Boers and Afrikans as they were pushed into concentration camps; all so the English could gain access to gold. Cecil Rhodes, the main instigator of war in Africa for gold and diamonds, is celebrated today with the Rhodes Scholarship, and the Deburs diamond company is still huge.
-The ideal of Freedom fueled the French Revolutionary war, the following Reign of Terror, the military campaigns of Napoleon; the American war of independence and the torturing of United Empire loyalists (tarring and feathering); all of this in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.
With your argument, you also accuse atheism, free market, patriotism, and freedom to be immoral. That is why it is fallacious.
* You accuse all Christians as being fundamentalist by saying that they don't disapprove of warfare against people of differing ideologies. This is unequivocally a bigoted accusation. The core beliefs of Christianity are peace and love; and those which do support violence and fundamentalism are not people who are really following the religion as it is written, they're just fans - and I think those types of people are only very frequent in native English speaking countries (maybe Spanish too, I don't know), particularly the United States. Although, in short: saying that religion is immoral because religion causes immorality is circular logic, and there for a logical fallacy.
* Lastly, the reason why I say you haven't come up with any argument against my point is because you haven't shown how atheism can determine an objective morality. Without objective morality, there is no reason why any atrocities, such as Hitler's, can be said to be wrong; when a male Lion commits infanticide, how is that naturally wrong? You asked me to read a philosophy book on morality. I have read many, including Nietzsche who postulated that morals develop from a human's will to power - in essence, for a person to feel as though they are being the best they can possibly be. Nietzsche accused the Christian morality as one holding Germany back - and for the worse, we listened, and I don't think I need to post the results of that. Had the Christian morality prevailed as the dominant morality, it is unlikely that people would have been so willing to accept the glory of war; and I disagree that it held Germany back. On Nietzsche's part, he wasn't able to conceive of a better morality despite his extreme distaste for Christian morality - although, to the misfortune of Europe, many others did.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
