Should any religious body be the sole moral authority?

[Eeveeon25]

No one should be forced to believe a religion OR be forced to be an atheist. Honestly, there are so many posts here on how all religions are bad for society, but I have yet to see a single person here mention how atheism has a downside. Plus, what's with all of this "religious people are closed-minded and force religion down people's throats" stuff when you all of you guys are closing your minds to anything against what you currently believe and are stating that non-atheists are idiots? From what I see here, atheism is no less biased than any religion (in fact, it seems MORE biased than some), and it actually seems to be a "religion" of sorts itself. If I'm wrong, please show me how.

 

[opaltiger]

but I have yet to see a single person here mention how atheism has a downside.

maybe because it doesn't?

and it actually seems to be a "religion" of sorts itself.

oh god no

the thing all religions have in common is that their followers all believe the same thing; they have the same practices, the same rituals, the same opinions (to an extent; things like morality from the bible, etc.). the only thing atheists have in common is lack of belief in god; in other words, it is definition by negation, ie. all the people who don't have a belief. There is no common goal; a laveyan satanist is an atheist just as much as a secular humanist, but they definitely don't share opinions, moral beliefs, and so on.

in short: if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby

 

[Alexi]

the thing all religions have in common is that their followers all believe the same thing; they have the same practices, the same rituals, the same opinions (to an extent; things like morality from the bible, etc.). the only thing atheists have in common is lack of belief in god; in other words, it is definition by negation, ie. all the people who don't have a belief. There is no common goal; a laveyan satanist is an atheist just as much as a secular humanist, but they definitely don't share opinions, moral beliefs, and so on.

in short: if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby

The bolded is not true, don't generalize. :/

 

[Zhorken]

wait
what

he didn't mean "EVERY RELIGION HAS THE SAME PRACTICES"
he meant
"ANY GIVEN RELIGION'S FOLLOWERS PRACTICE (generally) THE SAME THINGS"

 

[Alexi]

I know.

And...Gasp! It's not true.

 

[#1 bro]

Plus, what's with all of this "religious people are closed-minded and force religion down people's throats" stuff when you all of you guys are closing your minds to anything against what you currently believe and are stating that non-atheists are idiots? From what I see here, atheism is no less biased than any religion (in fact, it seems MORE biased than some), and it actually seems to be a "religion" of sorts itself. If I'm wrong, please show me how.

I wouldn't go so far to say that all theists are stupid. Maybe "theists in general are unenlightened" or "theists in general are not free-thinkers" or possibly "theists in general are weak", but there are certainly intelligent theists out there. I do believe that theists all have ridiculous, inane beliefs, similarly to how if I told you that I believed in Santa Claus, you would say that I had ridiculous, inane beliefs. You could hardly say that's biased.

 

[interim idiot]

ok why is the title even a question worthy of the dh

i think the answer being no should be pretty fucken obvious

 

[GameFreakerZero]

No one should be forced to believe a religion OR be forced to be an atheist.

Fair enough.

Honestly, there are so many posts here on how all religions are bad for society, but I have yet to see a single person here mention how atheism has a downside.

Please, enlighten us to the overall downside to society that not believing in a deity would bring.

Plus, what's with all of this "religious people are closed-minded and force religion down people's throats" stuff when you all of you guys are closing your minds to anything against what you currently believe

Generally we try to be open minded, but not so much so that our brains fall out of our skulls.

Not to mention this is a debating board and if everyone was 'open minded' as you want them to be, there wouldn't be any debate.

From what I see here, atheism is no less biased than any religion (in fact, it seems MORE biased than some)

That's a lovely generalisation of a group of people with no set of beliefs, cause, or anything other than the lack of a belief in a guy in the sky.

and it actually seems to be a "religion" of sorts itself. If I'm wrong, please show me how.

Please explain to me how atheism, which by its very etymology means "anti-theism" can resemble something related to theism. Especially when the only thing atheism strictly is is the lack of a belief in creator.

I love how people seem to generalise atheism into meaning a group that has to believe everything to do with science and has to hate everything to do with religion. A lot of atheists think the former and an amount believe the latter but they are in no way necessary to be an atheist. The only qualifying factor to being an atheist is thinking that a deity isn't worth believing in, for whatever reason.

 

[opaltiger]

I know.

And...Gasp! It's not true.

uh-huh.

I would love to hear your reasoning.

 

[Harlequin]

what are the downsides of atheism

I've really tried to see them but

I can't.

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

Harle they might not exist.
:'(

 

[Cryssie]

I hesitate to be the devil's advocate here, but I won't see this bit glossed over: to some people there'd be a pretty life-shaking emotional impact in ceasing to believe. Surely you are aware that the idea of there being nothing after death, to give one example, deeply frightens many on a pretty fundamental level?

There's a lot to be said for feeling secure, and that life is worthwhile. Don't get me wrong: you all know what I think of religion. I'm certainly not saying it's preferable to atheism. But if you think that every single person on the planet could make the transition from theist to atheist without some left feeling pretty seriously unsettled by it, I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[Eeveeon25]

The downside to atheism is that there are no set morals of any kind; since there's no God to judge us, everyone sets his own standards, and so having a society devoid of religion wouldn't be society at all; if you think killing someone is okay, then it's okay. If you think stealing is okay, it's okay. And of course, who put the country's leaders in authority? Or the police? Or your school teachers? What right would they possibly have to boss you around when the only rule is your rule? Pure atheism would result in anarchy and chaos.

 

[Alexi]

uh-huh.

I would love to hear your reasoning.

Well, in Wicca (or just paganism in general), different people practice differently. Some use very formalized rituals, some informal or spontanious. Some not even at all.

So not every religion is like that.

 

[#1 bro]

actually, no.

if you think killing someone is okay, then it's okay. If you think stealing is okay, it's okay.

this problem also exists with any religion. for example: fundamentalists think that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. gay people and more moderate Christians think that homosexuality is acceptable because "oh in Leviticus it also condemns eating shellfish" or "it's a mistranslation" or something. every Christian has their own little content filter for the Bible, whether they'll admit it or not. the Bible says slavery is okay, yet every Christian makes up some sort of reason why those parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally. after all, there are Christians that kill people (sometimes in the name of God, sometimes not) and there are many, many atheists that don't kill people.

really, our morals are completely independent from anything the Bible says, as much as some people don't want to admit it.

And of course, who put the country's leaders in authority? Or the police? Or your school teachers? What right would they possibly have to boss you around when the only rule is your rule?

erm, this doesn't even make sense. first: most atheists don't think this way at all. second: "And of course, who put the country's leaders in authority? Mere men. Or your school teachers? Mere men. What right would they possibly have to boss you around when the only rule is God's rule? Religion results in anarchy and chaos."

 

[Eeveeon25]

actually, no.
after all, there are Christians that kill people (sometimes in the name of God, sometimes not) and there are many, many atheists that don't kill people.

And of course, who put the country's leaders in authority? Mere men. Or your school teachers? Mere men. What right would they possibly have to boss you around when the only rule is God's rule? Religion results in anarchy and chaos.

No true Christian believes they are perfect; the Bible clearly states that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Also, the Bible states that being such a zealot (such as killing people just because they are sinners) is wrong, so they aren't actually doing it in the name of God.

As for the authority part, God's rule IS to follow our leaders. The Bible says that such people DO have authority over us and we are to follow them as long as they don't contradict God's pre-set laws (for example, if the President declared a law that said "go kill your neighbor," we wouldn't follow it). God is not an anarchist; in fact, He created society.

 

[#1 bro]

No true Christian believes they are perfect

wait when did I say this?

the Bible clearly states that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Also, the Bible states that being such a zealot (such as killing people just because they are sinners) is wrong, so they aren't actually doing it in the name of God.

As for the authority part, God's rule IS to follow our leaders. The Bible says that such people DO have authority over us and we are to follow them as long as they don't contradict God's pre-set laws (for example, if the President declared a law that said "go kill your neighbor," we wouldn't follow it). God is not an anarchist; in fact, He created society.

it seems you completely missed the point. the vast majority of Christians choose what parts of the Bible to adhere to and what parts to ignore. for example: do you never eat shellfish? do you never wear two different types of cloth? do you believe that if a woman is raped, she should be forced to marry her rapist? if you don't, and you're a Christian, you're a hypocrite. inevitably, most Christians handwave this with "oh Jesus said that only the moral rules apply and that the other rules don't apply" but come on, if you have to pull a bunch of ridiculous "interpretations" out of your ass to justify your religion's holy book, then maybe you should realize that your religion is inherently screwed up.

 

[Cryssie]

Okay, it's 180 time. Firmly back into atheism's corner I go...

About this absolute morality deal, and any related "well what if I decided to kill someone?" and "atheism would mean total chaos and anarchy!" ideas.

Let's start at the lack of absolute morality. Yes, that makes you free to come to your own decisions on the moral front. Yeah, you could decide to kill someone. You're not objectively "wrong" in some arbitrary universal way if that's what you decide. The universe cares nothing for the loss of one miserable human life. You will find yourself, however, very much at odds with the morals of the vast majority of humanity, and they will almost certainly try to stop you. Because it seems to be a pretty instinctive thing to want to keep one another alive.

And the anarchy thing. No belief in a deity (and their take on absolute morality) does not equal not having to adhere to human laws and government. You might ask "well, why obey a government if you won't obey a god and you're deciding your own morals?" The way I see it: with a god and absolute morality, you have your rules set in stone and decided for you. Your gut feeling, your own thoughts, they don't have a place in that system. If you disagree with your religion, well, you'd better change your mind or burn in hell, hadn't you?

With a human law system, your rules are decided by humans (and - this being the difference - don't pretend otherwise!). Now I know there are some pretty odd or restrictive laws out there, and it's not ideal when the law stops you from doing something harmless, but suffice it to say I lean towards liberalness and beyond that it's a discussion for another thread.

My point is: you are free to disagree with their decisions and even argue your point if you so choose, without apparently damning yourself to hellfire - and since politicians are as human as anyone else, you shouldn't feel fanatically compelled to believe them unquestionably. No killing in the name of their laws or anything because they are the absolute untouchable holy truth, you know.

Though as a general rule these governments will at least take precautions to try to stop you from doing things that it is widely accepted are undesirable among sane human beings, like murder. Don't you agree with that? So why should atheism result in chaos even though obeying the government (which already try to cover this sort of thing) does not require one to hold religious beliefs?

I also find it pretty unlikely that you would decide that killing a person was actually somehow the right thing to do. You might feel driven to do it for whatever reason, despite it being against the instinct that killing is bad, but if you actually feel that killing is somehow morally correct, you will be widely considered cracked, and the rest of humanity will deal with you as according to their opposing morals.

 

[Eeveeon25]

I have a few questions. And not rhetorical or sarcastic questions, real questions that I wish for someone to give clear and serious explanations on:

If God does not exist, where did these widely accepted ideals such as murder being wrong come from, especially when the result of a certain frowned-upon action would not truly have an effect on the population at large? What drove man to determine these specific morals, if man even made them? Why is it that someone who thinks mass murder is right is clearly messed in the head?

And most importantly: why do people feel guilt if moral is determined by man? If it wasn't determined by man, how could evolution give us guilt?

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

The downside to atheism is that there are no set morals of any kind; since there's no God to judge us, everyone sets his own standards, and so having a society devoid of religion wouldn't be society at all; if you think killing someone is okay, then it's okay. If you think stealing is okay, it's okay. And of course, who put the country's leaders in authority? Or the police? Or your school teachers? What right would they possibly have to boss you around when the only rule is your rule? Pure atheism would result in anarchy and chaos.

Okay, let me tell you this is utter bullshit.
I'm an atheist. Pure and simple. I do not believe in any god and I negate the existence of any divinity. Yet somehow I still have moral standards! I believe rape is wrong, murder is a crime and paedophilia makes me sick to my stomach! HOW ABOUT FUCKING THAT I'M A DECENT HUMAN BEING BECAUSE I ACT LOGICALLY AND CARE ABOUT PEOPLE.
The Bible says a lot of dumb things. That rape = marriage thing, the huge promotion of incest, the complete condemnation of homosexuality, the 'no shellfish' rule no one follows, the cloth rule, the crop rule. Hell, it even says bats are birds. You can't except me to base my entire belief system on something so obviously morally and scientifically flawed.

No true Christian believes they are perfect; the Bible clearly states that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Also, the Bible states that being such a zealot (such as killing people just because they are sinners) is wrong, so they aren't actually doing it in the name of God.

As for the authority part, God's rule IS to follow our leaders. The Bible says that such people DO have authority over us and we are to follow them as long as they don't contradict God's pre-set laws (for example, if the President declared a law that said "go kill your neighbor," we wouldn't follow it). God is not an anarchist; in fact, He created society.

In most decent countries, Presidents have legalized homosexual marriage. This is the case of the country where I live (where it wasn't a president, but the king and the PM).
Time to go rip them a new one for contradicting God's Law.

If God does not exist, where did these widely accepted ideals such as murder being wrong come from, especially when the result of a certain frowned-upon action would not truly have an effect on the population at large?

Because if the only reason as to why you're not comitting murder is fear of reprisal from a god then you have serious issues. Normal people don't kill other people because they realize it ends another person's life and makes many others suffer, amongst other things.
Decent people don't like it when others suffer and it has nothing to do with deities.

What drove man to determine these specific morals, if man even made them?

Some of them were based on the Bible, but since the Bible wasn't written by god but by the apostles and some other guys it's perfectly logical to assume they infused it with their own opinions and passed it off as their god's. Some of them are logical: shellfish used to be very unhygienic and caused a lot of death by food poisoning because people were unable to wash it properly or keep it cool, anal sex was also unhygienic due to improper cleaning methods (condemnation of homosexuality), etc.
And some laws have changed as times progressed because people realized they don't need to blindly folllow a moral rulebook written 2000 years before their time.

Why is it that someone who thinks mass murder is right is clearly messed in the head?

Because they are most likely sociopathic or have some other kind of disease that creates apathy towards human life. This is a clinical condition and has nothing to do with god or a holy book.
(and no you fucks, don't start self-diagnosing with this because you're '2 kool to care about others' or I'll kill you)

And most importantly: why do people feel guilt if moral is determined by man? If it wasn't determined by man, how could evolution give us guilt?

We feem guilt because we're capable of intelligent thought, and as such of empathy (unless one has a disorder, as previously mentioned).

I'd answer better but I'm late for school as it is.