• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Atheism has any value in terms of humanism ?

pinqy said:
But there is no "Atheism as a philosophy." There's nothing to base a philosophy on. Theism is not a philosophy either.
Click to expand...

Atheism IS a philosophy, nothing more: they see it as educated opinion.
 
jet57 said:
Atheism IS a philosophy, nothing more: they see it as educated opinion.
Click to expand...

Is not taking the tales told in fairy stories as true also a philosophy?
 
jet57 said:
Atheism IS a philosophy, nothing more: they see it as educated opinion.
Click to expand...

So...Randians and Communists have a shared philosophy? No, there's nothing more to "atheism" than a lack of belief in gods. That's an opinion/conclusion/belief/non-belief. Buddhism, Taoism, and Shintoism can all be considered Atheist religions. So too can the White Supremist relgion of "Creativity" (formerly "World Church of the Creator")

People are atheist for numerous different reasons.
 
jet57 said:
Sure it is. But we're not talking about that.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that not believing in the existence of imaginary beings can be elevated to a philosophy. You may as well call not collecting stamps a philosophy.
 
no
RogueWarrior said:
Saying you know what it means, does not make it so.
If you want a meaningful discuss, we need to be talking the same language (no pun intended)

Several of your posts so far, tell me that your understanding of atheism is not the same as most atheists.

Things like:
'atheistic philosophy'
or implying that religions are unique in having a morality especially what you state it as FACT without providing evidence. NOt saying you are wrong, just please do more than preach please!
Click to expand...

you should read well before posting .on the contrary I told that religions take its source from the society's moral values,not morality is derived from the religions
 
RogueWarrior said:
in the practice of religious theists, it might mean 'not religious' or 'anti-religious'. This indicates a lack of understanding of their part.
Only christians might think atheism is 'anti-christian'.
muslims might think atheism is anti-muslim but they are both wrong.

atheism is independent from religion.
Click to expand...

religious theist and me ? you are being too funny if you are referring to me .)))

only ignorant people think atheism is just anti ' their own religion

please lets stop implying every believer is somehow stupid or ignorant.I have been a deist for the most of my life untill few years ago .I mean there isnt an ignorant person here
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
But there is no "Atheism as a philosophy." There's nothing to base a philosophy on. Theism is not a philosophy either.
Click to expand...

WHO said atheism has a philosophy ? I must have meant ' so called philosophie

we believe atheists are usually arrogant
 
Medusa said:
WHO said atheism has a philosophy ? I must have meant ' so called philosophie

we believe atheists are usually arrogant
Click to expand...

Have you just come here to mock atheism or is there a point or argument you are making?
 
Medusa said:
hi ROGUE
I know what it means and thats why I dont want to read ' its not set of rules ' nonsense.any fascist can be atheist (positive or negative ) ,any communist or any conservative or any gay or hetero can be atheist.now lets try to understand what any atheistic philosophie can give to the society.but I can say I know religions were derived from morality .THATS FACT
Click to expand...

No, it's really not a fact. The original derivation of religion was out of ignorance of the natural world and to solidify power structures so that some people could control other people. "Morality" centered around obedience to that power structure.

Honestly, I don't understand what you mean in your OP, either. Your question is quite vague. Do you mean "does atheism inform humanism?" or "does atheism encourage humanism?" or "is atheism necessary for humanism?" Those are all questions that make sense. The answers to those questions, by the way, are "they certainly go together", "yes", and "no, but it helps".

Medusa said:
we believe atheists are usually arrogant
Click to expand...

That's funny, since religious people claim to have a special understanding of the universe that everyone in the whole world who doesn't believe what they do is missing, and often claim to be personally visited by an all-powerful god. All atheists say is that we don't believe you when you make those claims.
 
Non religious, non-objective morality is the only version of morality that can improve or get better. Other standards of morality are rooted in particular times, and based off of particular knowledge. It's fairly elementary to show that standards of morality change depending on knowledge (even Christians believe that, the tree of knowledge gave us morality), so it would make sense that it is only in the now that we can judge morality the best.

Thus, any formally recorded code of morality becomes outdated and weakens as it ages and we become more knowledgable. That is the inherent weakness of religious morality, and the strength of secular morality.
 
iangb said:
Well, that's because there are benefits to a certain degree of selfishness and self-centeredness. Otherwise you would give all of your money to the poor and give your house to the homeless.

Religion is a way of codifying and enforcing morality, but it's disadvantage is that morality is subjective and changes with the times, whereas religion tends to be absolute and (therefore) left behind by a changing society.
Click to expand...

Religion may not change as quickly as some would like, but it does evolve over time. That it does not respond to every fad is a feature, not a bug.
 
RogueWarrior said:
in the practice of religious theists, it might mean 'not religious' or 'anti-religious'. This indicates a lack of understanding of their part.
Only christians might think atheism is 'anti-christian'.
muslims might think atheism is anti-muslim but they are both wrong.

atheism is independent from religion.
Click to expand...

A few self professed atheists are anti-Christian and anti-religious. I don't know how anyone could read Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris and be unclear on that. It doesn't get more extreme than hating on Mother Teresa and branding all religious belief as harmful.
 
pinqy said:
Are you seriously that arrogant that you cannot conceive that YOU might be the one that's unclear? Saying who the question is for, doesn't explain the question. I have no idea what YOU have in mind when you say "humanistic value." I cannot read your mind, so no attempt to understand it would be successful unless you explain what you mean.
Click to expand...

Particularly when she dismisses out of hand one major humanistic aspect of atheism is that if we get into war, we can't blame it on religion or claim godly supremacy.
 
Medusa said:
hi ROGUE
I know what it means and thats why I dont want to read ' its not set of rules ' nonsense.any fascist can be atheist (positive or negative ) ,any communist or any conservative or any gay or hetero can be atheist.now lets try to understand what any atheistic philosophie can give to the society.but I can say I know religions were derived from morality .THATS FACT
Click to expand...

Religions were derived to control the populace, not from morality. It's not moral to kill children, it's not moral to rape a virgin, it's not moral to predetermine the crucifixion of your son. . . and so on.
 
Atheistic/Agnostic philosophy gives society permission to use research, observation, and science to understand the world, even when the evidence contradicts traditional notions on the nature of reality. It does not directly address ethics, but it allows people to be more ethical by removing the misinformation and prejudices that are taught by religion. From there people have the ability and responsibility to make their own rational decisions about ethical matters. The risk is that people will use rationalizations to justify unethical behavior because there are no established rules. But as history has shown, the risk of people rationalizing bad behavior is at least as great with theistic world views with established rules. That is why we have civil laws limiting behavior.
 
Summerwind said:
Religions were derived to control the populace, not from morality. It's not moral to kill children, it's not moral to rape a virgin, it's not moral to predetermine the crucifixion of your son. . . and so on.
Click to expand...

you are not talking to a stupid ignorant bigot.please dont teach me how religions evolved and for what

would you like me to say ' morality was derived from religions ? .that wouldnt support your argument!!!
 
Medusa said:
lets discuss.I dont want to read posts such as ' atheism isnt set of rules that dictates your lives or it doesnt kill people unlike religions ' .thank you
Click to expand...

What's this pointless tripe? Does atheism have any value to humanism? Why couldn't it? OK, let’s go with this then. Atheism puts all the burden onto man, it doesn’t shift responsibility or blame to unseen, imaginary, magical fairies. You want something done? You can’t sit around praying for it, you have to go out and do it. Did something mess up? It wasn’t some form of divine intervention, you just messed up and you need to fix it.

So does it have worth? Perhaps so, by placing responsibility and burden directly on our own shoulders, we have to accept that only through our actions and desires can we accomplish goals. And when things mess up, we have to take personal responsibility for it and correct it. No magical sky pixie is going to bail you out. Succeed or fail by your own power, there is nothing to save you.
 
Medusa said:
you are not talking to a stupid ignorant bigot.please dont teach me how religions evolved and for what

would you like me to say ' morality was derived from religions ? .that wouldnt support your argument!!!
Click to expand...

religions were created to enforce the morality evolved within the societies that developed the religions.
 
LowDown said:
Religion may not change as quickly as some would like, but it does evolve over time. That it does not respond to every fad is a feature, not a bug.
Click to expand...

What is the process for that? Or the driving force that causes it to change?

As far as I know, it was the pressure from secular inquiry which caused, say, the catholic church, to reconsider its stances on matters such as limbo, or evolution, or shellfish.

Does the church, or any theistic 'code', for that matter, have any formal way of addressing and implementing such change?
 
Nilly said:
What is the process for that? Or the driving force that causes it to change?

As far as I know, it was the pressure from secular inquiry which caused, say, the catholic church, to reconsider its stances on matters such as limbo, or evolution, or shellfish.

Does the church, or any theistic 'code', for that matter, have any formal way of addressing and implementing such change?
Click to expand...

These questions are decided by reflection on experience, scripture, prayer, the traditions of the Church, and the witness of the Elders of the Church. It's not the case that it has all been written down and decided forever.

The Church put Galileo under arrest, but later it confirmed his work and published his books.

The Church looked the other way with slavery, but later condemned it as immoral.

The Church approved of the granting of indulgences, but later condemned the practice

And so on.

Some of these changes were the result of secular evidence. Others were purely theological. On the question of slavery, for example, if the Church had listened to the secular thinkers of the day it would not have condemned the practice.
 
LowDown said:
A few self professed atheists are anti-Christian and anti-religious. I don't know how anyone could read Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris and be unclear on that. It doesn't get more extreme than hating on Mother Teresa and branding all religious belief as harmful.
Click to expand...

atheists can do that. atheists can do everything a theist does, with the exception of belief in one claim.
it isn't atheism that drives them to it. It can't. Disbelief of a god claim (aka atheism) is just a description of someone's stance on one single claim made by theists. It has no other explanatory power. A lot of people assume it does but correlation is not causation.

Without getting into why Mother Teresa is not really a nice person (that would be another thread), Harris, Hitchens et al. have, in their view, good reasons to believe that religions tend to be bad examples for morality (this would be another thread too).
 
Ikari said:
What's this pointless tripe? Does atheism have any value to humanism? Why couldn't it? OK, let’s go with this then. Atheism puts all the burden onto man, it doesn’t shift responsibility or blame to unseen, imaginary, magical fairies. You want something done? You can’t sit around praying for it, you have to go out and do it. Did something mess up? It wasn’t some form of divine intervention, you just messed up and you need to fix it.

So does it have worth? Perhaps so, by placing responsibility and burden directly on our own shoulders, we have to accept that only through our actions and desires can we accomplish goals. And when things mess up, we have to take personal responsibility for it and correct it. No magical sky pixie is going to bail you out. Succeed or fail by your own power, there is nothing to save you.
Click to expand...
on the contrary many atheists never stop blaming god (imaginary god they dont believe ) for the evilness in this life..interesting but many atheists really believe in god more than any believer in this respect.if there was a god he wouldnt let children die of hunger.its one of their arguments now tell me how you put all the burden onto man
 
Medusa said:
you are not talking to a stupid ignorant bigot.please dont teach me how religions evolved and for what

would you like me to say ' morality was derived from religions ? .that wouldnt support your argument!!!
Click to expand...

Morality is not derived from religions, that's a falsehood religions would like for you to believe in, but it ain't fact. Only derived from religion is control of a society, and often not in the most moral of ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom