school in Connecticut

[mikeh]

Wow, I've heard people rant against religion before, but mikeh you sound kinda angry.

I've for too long been exposed to the pious making all kinds of attacks on those who don't believe as they do. I read of a survey in the US that revealed that being openly atheist was the worst of all factors being polled, in terms of being electable to public office. I have read that atheists lack any moral sense, and are thus likely to be cold-blooded killers and rapists. I have read that prominent US politicians have stated that natural disasters, such as Storm Sandy or Hurricane Katrina, are god's vengance upon non-believers. I have read, this morning, a former and perhaps future Republican seeker of the presidential nomination (Huckabee) claim that it was the prohibition of school prayer that led to this most recent massacre.

 

Then I read Fluffy's moronic assertion that atheism is responsible for this mass killing of children and the image of my grandkids flashed through my mind and I got very angry indeed. Far too many religious believers, smug and arrogant in the infallibility of their silly beliefs are willing to blame atheists....people who, on balance, have spent far more time thinking about religion than most believers....for anything bad in the world.

 

I have read much, tho not all of the bible. I have read some, but not all, of the koran. I have read some of the bhuddist teachings. I know a smattering, tho only a smattering, of the hindu beliefs, and have had discussions with Jewish believers about their faith. And I have read widely in terms of history, and natural history/evolution, and about the study of our origins as members of our species. I have read of the Greek gods, the Roman gods, the Norse gods, the Egyptian gods and others.

 

I have read various anthropological texts. I have read books about the brain and the mind. I am, from a legal perspective, a specialist in cases of traumatic brain injury and have seen how the 'meat' part of us causes us to experience and believe things, including things that may not really be there. Damage the brain in a certain way, and empathy disappears. Damage it in another way, and moral inhibitions go away. Damage it in a 3rd away, and we get visual and/or auditory hallucinations, and so on.

 

I find the universe to be awe-inspiring. I love the fact that as we seem, as a species, to be arriving at some global understanding, a new fact is discovered that causes us to step back and realize we have so far barely scratched the surface.

 

I even find awe in the idea, hardly original with me, that maybe our brains, having evolved in response to the earthly environment in which we speciated and flourished, are simply not equipped with the cognitive power to understand 'everything', and I only wish that I could be one of those actually trying to show that that is not so...or to go as far towards understanding as we can.

 

So when I encounter the wilfully blind who think that the variously translated tales of largely ignorant scribes, from many centuries ago, or the incoherent ramblings of a fanatical zealot reflect absolute truth, and who go on to blame me and people who think like me for the atrocities of (probably) mentally ill mass murderers, then, yes, I get angry.

 

It is in my view very important that the religious nuts, who blame people like me for things like this, get called on it everytime. Otherwise, they and others who tend to think that way, will never have to think that perhaps they are mistaken.

[Cyberyeti]

It is in my view very important that the religious nuts, who blame people like me for things like this, get called on it everytime. Otherwise, they and others who tend to think that way, will never have to think that perhaps they are mistaken.

 

Absolutely, and also - don't get me started on creationists and other people who want to force their religiously coloured view of the world onto non believers by forcing it to be taught in schools as truth.

[ArtK78]

If you're going to read the Constitution, read all of it. The Constitution includes the twenty seven amendments that have been made to it since 1787. One of those amendments, the thirteenth, abolished slavery:

So while it is true that the original Constitution did not abolish slavery, the current state of the document is that slavery was abolished in 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment went into effect.

My point was that whenever you hear about people referring to the "Founding Fathers" in a reverential manner those people probably have no idea what is in the Constitution that the "Founding Fathers" drafted. Slavery was abolished after the Civil War. The "Founding Fathers" were all dead by then.

[mike777]

My only point in posting the stuff below is to show that I don't think the public fully understands the risks of semi automatic weapons.

 

 

------------

Expiration and Effect on Crime

 

Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices." [5]

 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[6] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[7]

 

The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[8]

 

That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[9]

 

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[10] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[11] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[12] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

 

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the laws enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."[13] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of Brady Campaign's claim that the ban was responsible for violent crime's decline.[14]

 

[edit] Efforts to renew the ban

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Expiration_and_Effect_on_Crime

[PassedOut]

Like most folks, I feel very fortunate that I never had to face a situation remotely like that confronting the parents in Newtown. I doubt that I would handle it well.

 

I'm also fortunate that my kids have been healthy, physically and mentally. Some problems are really, really tough: I am Adam Lanzas Mother

 

Parents like this woman do need serious help. When they don't get it, the consequences can be tragic.

[Cthulhu D]

Not sure if you meant this with more crazies, but just increasing the population will get more cases of almost anything, overpopulation gets also another effect.

 

Oh, and increasing atheism is not helping also IMO. Religion is a good last resort against things like this.

 

This may actually be the dumbest opinion I've seen expressed on this forum, which is quite an achievement considering the climate change thread. Do you have any evidence at all for this? Indeed, do you have any evidence that it isn't a rise in religious extremism that isn't the cause? Or are you just a bigot? To demonstrate exactly how ill informed your post is, let me try it again with some word substitution!

 

Oh, and increasing jewry is not helping also IMO.

 

See, that sounds pretty bad, I'm sure you'll agree. Let's try some other stuff!

 

Oh, and increasing African American presence is not helping also IMO.

 

See, that's amazingly racist!

 

Oh, and increasing Islamic presence is not helping also IMO.

 

Tada! Do you see why your opinion is bigotry?

 

vvv What he said.

[Mbodell]

Wow, I've heard people rant against religion before, but mikeh you sound kinda angry.

 

I welcomed mikeh's response as I found this

Oh, and increasing atheism is not helping also IMO. Religion is a good last resort against things like this.

tiresome and offensive. Try some substitutions to get the feeling of what feels wrong "Oh, and increasing black population is not helping also IMO. Social cohesion (white pride) is a good last resort against things like this." or "Oh, and increasing homosexuality is not helping also IMO. Heterosexual families is a good last resort against things like this." I think we'd all recognize those constructions as repugnant and worthy of correction, offense, and possible moderator action.

 

Plus, as mikeh points out, the evidence is if anything the reverse of what was claimed.

 

See, for instance, study on athieism and societal behaviors (crime included), an excerpt from the conclusion is:

 

Do the findings of contemporary social science support this Biblical assertion [that atheists are no good]? The

clear answer is no. Atheism and secularity have many positive correlates, such as higher

levels of education and verbal ability, lower levels of prejudice, ethnocentrism, racism,

and homophobia, greater support for women’s equality, child-rearing that promotes independent

thinking and an absence of corporal punishment, etc. And at the societal level,

with the important exception of suicide, states [within the US] and nations with a higher proportion of

secular people fare markedly better than those with a higher proportion of religious

people.

 

I'll close with a well known quote from US Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg (that admittedly doesn't cover the school shooting, but does touch on some of the places that mikeh mentioned):

 

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

[onoway]

Like most folks, I feel very fortunate that I never had to face a situation remotely like that confronting the parents in Newtown. I doubt that I would handle it well.

 

I'm also fortunate that my kids have been healthy, physically and mentally. Some problems are really, really tough: I am Adam Lanza’s Mother

 

Parents like this woman do need serious help. When they don't get it, the consequences can be tragic.

 

What a heart wrenching story. The stats about people with mental illness now being tossed into jail rather than given some sort of help/care is all too true in Canada as well.

 

I used to work with emotionally disturbed kids and it is humbling now to think about how much easier it was for us with a cohesive staff and programs to support the kids and each other. Also, the intake was limited by both age (pretty much between 9 and 12) and those the admin felt we could help, and we had very few kids as severely affected as her son. As far as I know, hospitals or jail were the only other options for out of control kids. Although we had a very high rate of success in helping these kids reintegrate successfully into schools and community, the program was shut down by the provincial government years ago as a means to help balance the budget. It's horrifying to think of people like the writer trying to cope without any support for her or the child or the other family members.

 

Perhaps she is right and attention to helping victims of mental health issues is a more urgent item on the agenda than gun control. Unfortunately, people can't see the damage, only the result of it, so it's difficult to convince politicians they would be getting a good return on their investment by dealing with damaged people, especially kids, before they reach tipping point.

 

The NRA is a very powerful and supposedly rich organisation, perhaps they should be involved in helping set up programs for severely disturbed kids as they are right, if nobody pulls the trigger the gun won't go off. If they want unlimited access to guns then perhaps they should be partly responsible to see that people don't grow up to use them so tragically.

 

Turning schools into armed camps with Wyatt Earps roaming the corridors is not an acceptable solution.

[kenberg]

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.[/Quote]

 

If I may make a peace offering: I would replace "religion" in this quote by blind adherence to dogma. Without putting down a list, I think most of us could come up with examples of grievous evil coming form [you name it]-ism applied with power and no sense.

[kenberg]

Like most folks, I feel very fortunate that I never had to face a situation remotely like that confronting the parents in Newtown. I doubt that I would handle it well.

 

I'm also fortunate that my kids have been healthy, physically and mentally. Some problems are really, really tough: I am Adam Lanza's Mother

 

Parents like this woman do need serious help. When they don't get it, the consequences can be tragic.

 

This is quite a story.

 

My wife singled out a passage that also grabbed my attention "I'm still stronger than he is, but I won't be for much longer". I have long thought that this is a major issue as children grow into adolescence and beyond. I recall in high school listening to some kid explain how he had punched out his father. There will always come a time when physical force will be insufficient as discipline. If the young person, for whatever reason, has not yet developed necessary self-controlthen the fat's in the fire.

 

It seems to be clear that in some cases the child, simply by genetic bad luck, is a really difficult case, a bomb waiting to explode. It certainly goes against both instinct and law to judge a person by what he might do rather than by what he has done, but the situation for this woman is dire. It's not a problem that I have personally faced, I don't know what to do about it.

[Cthulhu D]

The NRA is a very powerful and supposedly rich organisation, perhaps they should be involved in helping set up programs for severely disturbed kids as they are right, if nobody pulls the trigger the gun won't go off. If they want unlimited access to guns then perhaps they should be partly responsible to see that people don't grow up to use them so tragically.

 

Turning schools into armed camps with Wyatt Earps roaming the corridors is not an acceptable solution.

 

It's an intent and capability thing. You can control intent - by providing mental healthcare etc or you can control capability by restricting access to firearms and the like. Current US policy doesn't really provide for either, so that's probably not where you want to start.

 

If I may make a peace offering

 

You're missing his point - it's worth looking up his remarks for the full context. His basic thesis is that religion defines the standards by which someone can do evil acts in the name of good. In the other examples you are thinking of, such as someone achieving a powerful position and then using that position to profit at the expense of others (as opposed to profit from his own labours), that is recognised as evil. However when a doctor refuses an abortion to someone who doesn't share his beliefs, and she dies as a result (as recently happened in Ireland), that is upheld as a good act.

 

Besides, it doesn't matter what you do - Fluffy needs to understand that his remarks were bigoted :)

[Zelandakh]

What a heart wrenching story. The stats about people with mental illness now being tossed into jail rather than given some sort of help/care is all too true in Canada as well.

There is a saying in England that prisons are for "The Sad, The Mad and The Bad". That is, roughly a third are addicted, another third are mentally ill and the final third are the criminals. This is certainly not something restricted only to North America. It would be nice if more effort was expended to try to separate out these 3 groups to increase the proportion of The Bad in prisons. Sadly, such policies are difficult to sell politically (ye olde soft on crime/liberal mantra comes out) and the benefits probably take too long to be realised for most modern democracies.

[billw55]

Besides, it doesn't matter what you do - Fluffy needs to understand that his remarks were bigoted :)

Everyone has their opinions on religion and the lack thereof, and I respect that. But I am not sure I see why Fluffy's statement is any more or less bigoted than the anti-religious statements made after.

 

Someone says he thinks atheism is bad - ah, that's bigotry.

 

Others say they think religion is bad - all is well.

 

Why?

[mikeh]

Everyone has their opinions on religion and the lack thereof, and I respect that. But I am not sure I see why Fluffy's statement is any more or less bigoted than the anti-religious statements made after.

 

Someone says he thinks atheism is bad - ah, that's bigotry.

 

Others say they think religion is bad - all is well.

 

Why?

Actually, he implied that people like me either are prone to mass murder or establish conditions in which mass murder becomes prevalent. Propositions which I find personally insulting, but which, more to the point, are precisely contrary to the evdence. Religious fanaticism, otoh, is known to increase the chances of abhorrent behaviour. Objectively speaking, thee is no doubt whatsoever that religious belief is more dangrous than a lack thereof.

 

The only reason that this is not universally acknowledged is the privileged position accorded to religion in society. But facts are facts, no matter how uncomfortable they may be to most people.

 

That doesn't mean that most believers are dangerous. As I said: our religions reflect all aspects of our nature, and many...I am sure 'almost all'... religious believers are usually good people. However, religion is like patriotism: it is a tool that can be and historically invariably is used by the ruling elite to get people to do terrible things in the name of something supposedly good.

 

Which has nothing to do with why this mass killing took place, as far as I can tell, but everything to do with why fluffy needed, imo, to be called out for his literally uthinking assertion. He's no doubt been told by people he trusts that religion is a force for good, and that rejecting god is bound to result in evil. And then accepted it without thinking about it, or looking at the evidence.

 

Let me add one thought, which anger prevented me from doing earlier. I have a great deal of respect for fluffy, in terms of his contributions to the forum. I strongly suspect that he is a very decent human being. I also suspect that he has grown up in an atmosphere in which just about everyone he knows and respects thinks as he appears to do, in terms of religion and atheism, and that he has had little exposure to or reason to think about why many people, including a lot of very intelligent people, find a belief in supernatural entities...'gods'...to be absurd. So I attribute no malice to him: merely ignorance. And ignorance is not a personal attribute. It is a condition for which there is a readily available treatment :D

[billw55]

Mike, I understand and respect your opinion. I would add a few comments. I cannot say that these refute what you are saying, only that perhaps there are other factors worth consideration.

 

Religious fanaticism, otoh, is known to increase the chances of abhorrent behaviour.

I agree, but I think this is a simplification. Fanaticism in general increases abhorrent behavior. This includes religious fanaticism, anti-religious fanaticism, and fanaticism unrelated to religion. It is true that much evil has been done in the name of religion. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to overlook evil done as anti-religion. Some of the most murderous tyrants in histrory were ruthlessly anti-religion, see Stalin for example.

 

However, religion is like patriotism: it is a tool that can be and historically invariably is used by the ruling elite to get people to do terrible things in the name of something supposedly good.

Of course this happens. But I consider "invariably" to be an overbid.

 

I have a great deal of respect for fluffy, in terms of his contributions to the forum. I strongly suspect that he is a very decent human being.

Also agree, which I why I think he has earned more courtesy than to simply be labeled a bigot, without even bothering to ask for more detail or clarification. Also I think we can say that while fluent, he is not quite a native English speaker, and perhaps his meaning was not perfectly expressed. Was any of this considered?

 

He's no doubt been told by people he trusts that religion is a force for good, and that rejecting god is bound to result in evil. And then accepted it without thinking about it, or looking at the evidence.

 

I also suspect that he has grown up in an atmosphere in which just about everyone he knows and respects thinks as he appears to do, in terms of religion and atheism, and that he has had little exposure to or reason to think about why many people, including a lot of very intelligent people, find a belief in supernatural entities...'gods'...to be absurd.

You are assuming much, and assigning negative qualities based on your assumptions, when these facts are not in evidence. Is this so different from what you perceive Fluffy to have done, and that you railed against?

[barmar]

I welcomed mikeh's response as I found this tiresome and offensive. Try some substitutions to get the feeling of what feels wrong "Oh, and increasing black population is not helping also IMO. Social cohesion (white pride) is a good last resort against things like this." or "Oh, and increasing homosexuality is not helping also IMO. Heterosexual families is a good last resort against things like this." I think we'd all recognize those constructions as repugnant and worthy of correction, offense, and possible moderator action.

I'm not speaking for Fluffy, but I'll bet many people with opinions similar to his about atheists would also agree with the above constructions. They don't just blame societal problems on these thing -- a prominent religious leader blamed hurricanes Katrina and Irene on the rise of homosexuality (i.e. God punishing the cities for tolerance).

[barmar]

If I may make a peace offering: I would replace "religion" in this quote by blind adherence to dogma. Without putting down a list, I think most of us could come up with examples of grievous evil coming form [you name it]-ism applied with power and no sense.

The only dogma I can think of that is comparable is Nazism. But religious dogma has been far more effective over history than any other.

[mikeh]

Hi Bill

 

A few points:

 

1.If by anti-religion, you intend to refer to atheists, the reality is that atheists are not an organized body and do not have any equivalent of a church or a doctrine. A doctrine is received or revealed knowledge, and is the anthesis of atheism. It is a common error, on the part of religious critics of atheism, to claim that atheism is merely another variant of religion, based on belief and faith.

 

2. I don't know what you mean by anti-religious fanatics doing violence. PZ Myers, a noted atheist blogger, once publicy desecrated a communion wafer. I think that is the most violent act I have seen in the name of atheism :D But I may well be ignorant of other, more real anti-religious fanaticism.

 

3. Stalin is often pulled out as an example of atheism gone bad. At least you didn't mention Hitler (who was a Xian, anyway). Stalin trained in a seminary, so one could argue that religious belief played a large role in his upbringing.

 

However, it is probably safer to say that Stalin was likely at least a sociopath and possibly a psychopath more concerned with gaining and holding power than in any particular philosophy. That is an incomplete answer, since it appears that many of the Russian communists were true believers. And I think the real answer lies in that statement. Communism was based on the notion...the belief...that human nature could be changed. That was what underlay the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Communism is not an inherently dictatorial system. But Marx and Lenin understood that human nature, as it then existed, was anthetical to communism: personal greed would cause many to seek advantage rather than work cooperatively. Hence the need for a dictatorship that would impose an era of enforced sharing and equality. The idea was that eventually people, perhaps some generations down the road, would come to see sharing and equality as the natural state of man, and the need for the dictatorship would fade...the 'state' would wither, and perfect communal living....communism...would prevail. It seems fair to assert that this was a belief system not based in reality. IOW, very much religious in nature. In addition, one can well see that organized religion, with its entirely different world view, would be seen as an enemy of this process. Any belief structure that had hierarchical power structures other than the state dictatorship would be an obstacle. In addition, from Stalin's personal point of view, any competitor for control over the people would be an enemy.

 

Btw, Stalin turned to the church for assistance when the Germans were at the height of their power during the invasion of Russian, just like Hussein turned to Islam in the runup to the invasion of Iraq.

 

4. Invariably was an overbid: I should have written 'often' :D

 

5. I didn't actually call fluffy a bigot, but I used equivalent language and I stand by it. Many bigots appear oblivious to their bigotry. The bigotry is often completely unconscious. My parents are both racists and I grew up in a family in which people with a different complexion to their skin were routinely referred to in derogatory terms. To this day, I am more aware of people's ethnicity than I ought to be, tho I hope that I have been able to avoid acting in a bigoted fashion. But I understand that I may be displaying bigotry in other forms precisely because I am unaware of it. I don't think Fluffy meant to attack any of us here, let alone me, when he attributed the mass killing of children to the growing (but minuscule) impact of atheism. I think he wrote in good faith, without any idea that he was revealing his bigoted nature on this topic.

 

6. I stated very clearly that, in talking about Fluffy, I was voicing suspicion, not stating fact. Moreover, it seems to me that I was stating suspicions that would explain why Fluffy might not be blameworthy for his bigoted statement. We cannot choose our childhood environment. I grew up as a racial and class bigot (I grew up in England and attended a Public School. I was a scholarship student but came from the right 'class', despite my parents not having any money. We had another scholarship student who came from a working class and I eagerly joined in with my classmates to mock him). I'm not sure when I first began questioning my attitudes and beliefs, but I know it took years for me to at least consciously stop thinking and acting on that learned bigotry. I was hoping that Fluffy is still in that early stage before he learns to think critically about what his elders have taught him. The alternative is that he has thought hard on the topic and has become, of his own accord, a bigot.

[billw55]

Mike,

 

Yes, I understand that atheism and anti-religion are not the same thing, which is why I chose the words the way that I did. The two may sometimes go together, but also may not. Stalin may have had religious views at one time, which he gave up, or maybe didn't. Either way, most of his rule was strongly anti-religious. Almost surely, the purpose of this was to gather and maintain power, rather than for philosophical reasons. I am sure that in some cases, much the same could be said about religious fanaticism from political leaders.

 

IMO, some of your prose in this thread sounds more like anti-religion than atheism.

[phil_20686]

The same sects often assert that their beliefs give rise to morality, and that atheists, a common foe to all believers, lack a moral sense. And it is that moral sense that prevents murder and other horrible acts.

 

These are not the claims. The first claim is that atheists cannot provide any kind of sensible philosophical underpinnings for their morality. This is not the same as claiming a given atheist has no moral sense. Most people learn morality through imitation, very few ever attempt to seek or provide any philosophical justification for ones morality. However, an inability to provide a sound philosophical justification for ones morality is a deep flaw in the athiest's belief system.

 

It is, in fact, remarkably hard to find any sensible philosophical system without God/moral absolutes, which does not run deeply into to trouble. For example, most atheists think of them selves as utilitarian. However, utilitarianism works better for religious people than atheists ironically, since atheists must do away with an absolute sense of "goodness", and end up defining net benefit essentially by "how one feels". Something is good if it adds to the net happiness of the world. However, as soon as you get a policy with distributed benefits and concentrated flaws, utilitarianism now fails. Since I like to be provocative, consider Gang Rape. There is presumably some diminishing returns to the negativity of being raped. After the first hundred times or so its hard to believe one more makes a difference, in which case, there is some number of people at which gang rape becomes a net benefit to society.

 

All the major moral philosophies that are compatible with atheism suffer from these flaws, in that they seldom correspond to our normal moral intuitions. On the other hand, its clear that theist philosophies do give rise to morality in a ontological complete sense.

 

The other claims sometimes made by theists is that religion prevents some crimes. However, most crimes are crimes of desperation or passion. I don't think many people believe that if you came home and found your wife banging another man that you would behave in a rational manner. :) More interesting is the question of premeditated crimes. Particularly repeated pre-meditated crimes by reasonably well off individuals. I am thinking of, say, professional Jewel thieves. Another area that would be interesting to look at is religion in special forces wet teams and similar. My intuition is that Religious would be under represented in any job that required killing people under morally dubious circumstances. On the other hand, I do not think the same would apply to regular soldiers. If anything my intuition is that Religions would be over represented among regular soldiers. I think the relationship between crime and religion is probably nuanced and complicated, but I think that there is such relationship. You seem to be claiming that religion and crime are fully independent. It seems irrational for you to believe that religious belief is sufficiently important to cause wars, but not important enough to affect criminal proclivities.

 

If anyone has seen genuine empirical data on these things I would like to see it. (PS: I don't mean broad based empirical studies on crime and religious affiliation, I have seen many of those, I mean specific studies on religion and premeditated crime, or religion in the special forces).

[mikeh]

Mike,

 

Yes, I understand that atheism and anti-religion are not the same thing, which is why I chose the words the way that I did. The two may sometimes go together, but also may not. Stalin may have had religious views at one time, which he gave up, or maybe didn't. Either way, most of his rule was strongly anti-religious. Almost surely, the purpose of this was to gather and maintain power, rather than for philosophical reasons. I am sure that in some cases, much the same could be said about religious fanaticism from political leaders.

 

IMO, some of your prose in this thread sounds more like anti-religion than atheism.

My take on your posts is that you are not a firmly decided atheist. I have no idea whether you are religious, agnostic (as I used to say I was) or merely a very polite atheist :D

 

I am anti-religious. I could give you many reasons why. I am sure that you already know what some of them would be.

 

One minor reason is that religion maintains its control over people by instilling fear and false beliefs. Thus Fluffy seems to suggest that a lack of belief in a supernatural god can cause people to lack a moral sense and thus be more ready to kill than would be the case otherwise. This is an argument I have read countless times.

 

I would not for a moment suggest that Fluffy would turn into a killer were he to lose his faith in god, and I am deeply angered by the smug assertions by so many religious people that, if thought through logically, would say otherwise. You may argue that I am confusing stupid people with religion, but that's akin to the no true scotsman argument. The fact that so many religious people take such positions reflects the effect of religion on the ability of the average human to reason critically.

 

If we looked at the state of knowledge, and the available intellectual tools, of 50,000 years ago, or even 1,000 years ago, a belief in supernatural powers would make a great deal of sense to anyone attempting to understand the universe. And in those days, religion might well have played, on the whole, a positive role in preserving and promulgating what knowledge there was, while ameliorating social conditions, and promoting some morally positive behaviours. But religion is now obsolescent in terms of explaining almost everything that was inexplicable then, and the still-remaining areas of ignorance are known to be areas of ignorance, calling out for investigation rather than for the god of the gaps. Yet religion still pervades our societies, doing immense harm now outweighing its once considerable benefits, imo.

 

So, yes, I am not only an atheist, but also anti-religious.

[dwar0123]

These are not the claims....

<----Goes to get the popcorn

[hrothgar]

These are not the claims. The first claim is that atheists cannot provide any kind of sensible philosophical underpinnings for their morality. This is not the same as claiming a given atheist has no moral sense. Most people learn morality through imitation, very few ever attempt to seek or provide any philosophical justification for ones morality. However, an inability to provide a sound philosophical justification for ones morality is a deep flaw in the athiest's belief system.

 

Only if you insist on objective notions of morality. Most people I know are moral relativists and don't require a "sound philosophical justification" for their morality.

 

It is, in fact, remarkably hard to find any sensible philosophical system without God/moral absolutes, which does not run deeply into to trouble. For example, most atheists think of them selves as utilitarian. However, utilitarianism works better for religious people than atheists ironically, since atheists must do away with an absolute sense of "goodness", and end up defining net benefit essentially by "how one feels".

 

This would same Utilitarianism that is best associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (both aethists)?

 

I spent a lot of time studying Edgeworth and working with indifference curves. I don't recall religion factoring into those discussion.

 

Once again you are projecting your own highly parochial notions, and its as annoying as ever.

 

Something is good if it adds to the net happiness of the world. However, as soon as you get a policy with distributed benefits and concentrated flaws, utilitarianism now fails. Since I like to be provocative, consider Gang Rape. There is presumably some diminishing returns to the negativity of being raped. After the first hundred times or so its hard to believe one more makes a difference, in which case, there is some number of people at which gang rape becomes a net benefit to society.

 

The most obvious counter is to note that many individuals would be fearful to live in a society in which they can be gang raped.

[PassedOut]

My take on your posts is that you are not a firmly decided atheist. I have no idea whether you are religious, agnostic (as I used to say I was) or merely a very polite atheist :D

This reminds of something my youngest sister, Gwen, described to me years ago. She was dating a man who was a serious Roman Catholic, and one night they were out with some of his friends. One of them asked about her religion.

 

"I'm an atheist."

 

After a long silence, her boyfriend spoke up. "She means that she is an agnostic."

 

Gwen stood up, pointed at him, and said, "I don't need a boyfriend to distort my statements just to appease a bunch of idiots!"

 

That was their last date. (Gwen has now been married for many years to a fine man who is definitely not an idiot.)

[mikeh]

These are not the claims. The first claim is that atheists cannot provide any kind of sensible philosophical underpinnings for their morality. This is not the same as claiming a given atheist has no moral sense. Most people learn morality through imitation, very few ever attempt to seek or provide any philosophical justification for ones morality. However, an inability to provide a sound philosophical justification for ones morality is a deep flaw in the athiest's belief system.

 

It is, in fact, remarkably hard to find any sensible philosophical system without God/moral absolutes, which does not run deeply into to trouble. For example, most atheists think of them selves as utilitarian. However, utilitarianism works better for religious people than atheists ironically, since atheists must do away with an absolute sense of "goodness", and end up defining net benefit essentially by "how one feels". Something is good if it adds to the net happiness of the world. However, as soon as you get a policy with distributed benefits and concentrated flaws, utilitarianism now fails. Since I like to be provocative, consider Gang Rape. There is presumably some diminishing returns to the negativity of being raped. After the first hundred times or so its hard to believe one more makes a difference, in which case, there is some number of people at which gang rape becomes a net benefit to society.

 

All the major moral philosophies that are compatible with atheism suffer from these flaws, in that they seldom correspond to our normal moral intuitions. On the other hand, its clear that theist philosophies do give rise to morality in a ontological complete sense.

 

The other claims sometimes made by theists is that religion prevents some crimes. However, most crimes are crimes of desperation or passion. I don't think many people believe that if you came home and found your wife banging another man that you would behave in a rational manner. :) More interesting is the question of premeditated crimes. Particularly repeated pre-meditated crimes by reasonably well off individuals. I am thinking of, say, professional Jewel thieves. Another area that would be interesting to look at is religion in special forces wet teams and similar. My intuition is that Religious would be under represented in any job that required killing people under morally dubious circumstances. On the other hand, I do not think the same would apply to regular soldiers. If anything my intuition is that Religions would be over represented among regular soldiers. I think the relationship between crime and religion is probably nuanced and complicated, but I think that there is such relationship. You seem to be claiming that religion and crime are fully independent. It seems irrational for you to believe that religious belief is sufficiently important to cause wars, but not important enough to affect criminal proclivities.

 

If anyone has seen genuine empirical data on these things I would like to see it. (PS: I don't mean broad based empirical studies on crime and religious affiliation, I have seen many of those, I mean specific studies on religion and premeditated crime, or religion in the special forces).

 

'These are not the claims'.

 

What you mean is that these are not 'your claims'. I have read many assertions that are exactly as I stated. The fact that you recognize that those claims are invalid doesn't alter the fact that many believe otherwise and are not at all reluctant to make their views known.

 

As for your views, you have opened up an area in which any meaningful discussion would require far more than even my propensities to long posts could suffice. I will say this: your invocation of utilitarism is very much a strawman argument, and I am surprised that you would resort to such cheap misdirection. I am not an acolyte of Bentham, at least not in the classic sense. Any nuanced sense of morality has (in my view) to recognize the rights of minorities, down to the scale of individuals, and any practical application must strike a balance between the pure greatest benefit to the greatest number and the protection of the minorities.

 

It is my perhaps naive and unspohisticated opinion that what we see as moral arises in part from hard-wiring of the brain. I find support for this from experiments conducted around the world, across diverse ethnic, cultural and religious peoples, which show a remarkably uniform set of responses to certain moral dilemmas posed in question form.

 

Of course, history tells us that morality is also to a large degree culturally linked. Thus some behaviours our ancestors thought morally defensible are now seen as repugnant and vice versa. We are, for instance, at least in the West, seeing such cultural shifts with respect to homosexuality, racism, and the status/treatment of women.

 

Religion, which is usually conservative, acts as a drag on such cultural changes.

 

As for the underlying philosophy, my view is that such philosophy is an attempt to understand and perhaps impact the interpretation or application of morality, not to create it. We have (most of us, anyway....some unfortunates seem not to) an innate moral predisposition that can be altered by cultural factors but has its roots in our biology. Philosophers attempt to explain or impact what is, not to create what was not.