Atheistic vs Religious societies

[Bill Angel]

Some religious teachings assert that all human life matters. The converse of this is Social Darwinism that considers some lives unsuitable to continue to support. Personally I would prefer living in a society based on religious beliefs that protected human life than an atheistic society that relied on euthanasia to rid itself of the burden of the physically and mentally disabled.

[Moontanman]

Some religious teachings assert that all human life matters. The converse of this is Social Darwinism that considers some lives unsuitable to continue to support. Personally I would prefer living in a society based on religious beliefs that protected human life than an atheistic society that relied on euthanasia to rid itself of the burden of the physically and mentally disabled.

 

 

WOW! What a strawman! Can you support your assertion that an atheistic society would do such things or that a religious society wouldn't?

[Bill Angel]

WOW! What a strawman! Can you support your assertion that an atheistic society would do such things or that a religious society wouldn't?

 

I would consider Nazi Germany to have been an atheistic society, as the Nazis had no intention of allowing a moral code derived from religious beliefs to constrain their actions.

[Moontanman]

I would consider Nazi Germany to have been an atheistic society, as the Nazis had no intention of allowing a moral code derived from religious beliefs to constrain their actions.

 

 

Well you can consider it to be an atheistic society all you want but the truth is that is was a religious society, Hitler was a Catholic, he thought he was doing gods work, his followers were not atheists by any definition of the word. Atheists have a moral code just like anyone else. Religious beliefs and moral code are not the same thing.

 

Not until religion dies will we have a chance at a truly moral society.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

 

I am sorry Cap'n I couldn't let that one go...

Edited August 18, 2012 by Moontanman

[Bill Angel]

Well you can consider it to be an atheistic society all you want but the truth is that is was a religious society, Hitler was a Catholic, he thought he was doing gods work, his followers were not atheists by any definition of the word. Atheists have a moral code just like anyone else. Religious beliefs and moral code are not the same thing.

 

Not until religion dies will we have a chance at a truly moral society.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

 

I am sorry Cap'n I couldn't let that one go...

 

It's interesting that you mention that wikipedia article about religion in Nazi Germany.

I would like to quote from it.

 

"Many Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler,  subscribed either to a mixture of pseudoscientific  theories, particularly Social Darwinism, or to mysticism and occultism, which was especially strong in the SS."

 

and

 

"In a confidential message to the Gauleiter  on June 9, 1941, Martin Bormann , had declared that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable."  He also declared that the Churches influence in the leadership of the people "must absolutely and finally be broken." Bormann believed Nazism was based on a "scientific" world-view, and was completely incompatible with Christianity."

[Moontanman]

It's interesting that you mention that wikipedia article about religion in Nazi Germany.

I would like to quote from it.

 

"Many Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler,  subscribed either to a mixture of pseudoscientific  theories, particularly Social Darwinism, or to mysticism and occultism, which was especially strong in the SS."

 

and

 

"In a confidential message to the Gauleiter  on June 9, 1941, Martin Bormann , had declared that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable."  He also declared that the Churches influence in the leadership of the people "must absolutely and finally be broken." Bormann believed Nazism was based on a "scientific" world-view, and was completely incompatible with Christianity."

 

 

Yes this is true and in the US you would have no problem finding individuals who agree with them but that doesn't make us an atheistic society nor does being an atheist mean you would agree with that. Sociopaths are a part of society, they occur in the religious and as well as the non religious. your assertion that an atheistic society would do those things automatically is false...

 

If our leader was a pagan would that mean you are a pagan? We are protected by a bill of rights and a constitution, we could choose to follow such a path but to say the leaders didn't believe in your religion makes them atheists or makes the entire country atheistic is false...

 

Now if you want to continue this track of conversation please make a new thread, this is off topic as the Cap'n pointed out...

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Topic split from here.

This thread is not to become a flame war. As well, the OP is also very specifically about religious and atheistic societies. The question of whether or not God (or Allah or whoever) exists or the veracity of the bible (or the Torah or whatever else) has no place here. Please do not derail this thread by asking or answering such questions.

[Moontanman]

Bill, can you tell me why you think an atheistic society would do such horrific things and not a religious society? As far as I know there has never really been an atheistic society but many religious societies have done some pretty horrific things in the name of god.

[iNow]

Notice how facts speak strongly against the OPs ignorance, and how well referenced those facts are.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

 

Hitler often associated atheism with bolshevism, communism, and Jewish materialism.[63] Hitler stated in a speech to the people of Stuttgart on February 15, 1933: "Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years."[64]

 

In a radio address October 14, 1933 Hitler stated, "For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion. We owe Providence humble gratitude for not allowing us to lose our battle against the misery of unemployment and for the salvation of the German peasant."[65]

 

In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."[66]

 

In a speech delivered at Koblenz, August 26, 1934 Hitler states: "There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles."[67]

 

During negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of April 26, 1933 Hitler argued that "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."[68]

 

---

 

Again below, the facts are strongly against your claim that atheist societies will descend into chaos and immorality.

 

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3189

 

So, what do the data show about the health, happiness and morality of these non-religious societies?

 

The data could hardly be clearer. Denmark and Sweden rank among the most well-developed, wealthiest, most democratic, most free, most entrepreneurial, least corrupt, least violent, most peaceful, healthiest, happiest, most egalitarian, best educated, most charitable, and most environmentally compassionate societies in the entire world.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

 

Phil Zuckerman spent 14 months in Scandinavia, talking to hundreds of Danes and Swedes about religion. It wasn’t easy.

 

Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. Polls asking about belief in God, the importance of religion in people’s lives, belief in life after death or church attendance consistently bear this out.

 

It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

 

Well documented though they may be, these two sets of facts run up against the assumption of many Americans that a society where religion is minimal would be, in Mr. Zuckerman’s words, “rampant with immorality, full of evil and teeming with depravity.”

[randomc]

Denmark and Sweden can't have been significantly non-religious for more than a couple of generations, so the most you could assert as strong fact is that atheistic societies needn't immediately decline into chaos.

 

The decline of the institutional structure supplied by religion will take longer than decline of belief itself. I think the absence of religion has only really been put to the test in communism, where it seemed to get sucked into the state and reincarnated as personality cults.

[Bill Angel]

Bill, can you tell me why you think an atheistic society would do such horrific things and not a religious society? As far as I know there has never really been an atheistic society but many religious societies have done some pretty horrific things in the name of god.

 

On the question of whether there has been any atheistic societies,

I would suggest several societies for examination:

 

The Soviet Union under Stalin

China under Mao

Present day North Korea

 

These societies view religion as an impediment to control of their society via a personality cult centered on their dictatorial leader.

And of course there have been religious societies that have done the same thing:

Spain under Franco for example.

What happened in Spain and in a host of other countries was that the Catholic Church had become corrupt and turned a blind eye to human rights abuses in these countries.

[Dynamic]

Some religious teachings assert that all human life matters. The converse of this is Social Darwinism that considers some lives unsuitable to continue to support. Personally I would prefer living in a society based on religious beliefs that protected human life than an atheistic society that relied on euthanasia to rid itself of the burden of the physically and mentally disabled.

 

Science doesn't care what you think, or care for your preferences (nor mine) [edit: meaning that our personnel views on things without applying the scientific method are typically wrong, just because I say not having gravity would be favorable because humans would live longer does not make it so, there is a probability that my belief / preference for a lack of gravity , and the removal of gravity would make humans live longer (although that probability is unknown until a series of events is observed), but until determined to be a fact (fact defined: as a close agreement of a series of observations of the same phenomenon) the belief should not be taken as true.

 

What do you even mean when you say life "matters". Are we talking about the duration of life? Are we talking about the quality of life? How do you want to measure it?

 

Hypothesis:

 

If we do not euthanize the elderly (define elderly in terms of age) or sick (define sick in precise terms for the experiment) ____ will occur

 

 

 

What if an "atheist society [i guess your defining it as one that performs eugenics, without a belief in god?]" was able to improve the duration of life via euthanasia and eugenic practices? What if the number of non lethal diseases experienced in a lifetime was reduced from the use of eugenics practices?

 

What is to stop a "religious [one that holds the belief there is a higher power]" society from practicing eugenics (to make man more into the image of "god" [god being defined as whatever traits the particular religious organization desires])? Or from "euthanizing" non believers (lets relief them from the pain and suffering of sin!)?

 

Before we can even begin to verify what will happen we need a better definition of religious society, and atheistic society, and from there we would need to study it empirically.

 

And to be honest I don't see how a belief or lack there of in god is relevant to the use of eugenics, or euthanasia on society.

 

Your also not defining a religious society at all. What is it a society in which X number of sample participants choose between claiming to be religious, and claiming not to be religious? You would also have to clarify what you meant by religious because many practices/beliefs are quite different, but associated with the term.

 

Just some things you should take into account.

 

Cheers,

Dynamic.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Dynamic

[Moontanman]

Some religious teachings assert that all human life matters. The converse of this is Social Darwinism that considers some lives unsuitable to continue to support. Personally I would prefer living in a society based on religious beliefs that protected human life than an atheistic society that relied on euthanasia to rid itself of the burden of the physically and mentally disabled.

 

 

On the question of whether there has been any atheistic societies,

I would suggest several societies for examination:

 

The Soviet Union under Stalin

China under Mao

Present day North Korea

 

These societies view religion as an impediment to control of their society via a personality cult centered on their dictatorial leader.

And of course there have been religious societies that have done the same thing:

Spain under Franco for example.

What happened in Spain and in a host of other countries was that the Catholic Church had become corrupt and turned a blind eye to human rights abuses in these countries.

 

 

If you agree on the last post why did you make the first one?

 

Communists might have officially not believed in God but the people never accepted that more than a small minority, cults of personality can and do arise in most societies.

 

Your OP is the polar opposite from the last one, what is up with that?

 

In the US our freedoms are guaranteed by the constitution, not religion, we needn't go communist or dictator to have an atheistic society. In fact I think it can be asserted that the US is and always has been a secular government, the people are allowed to believe what they want as long as what they believe doesn't advocate harming others.

 

So far you have failed to make a connection between atheism and euthanasia or any restriction of the rights of others for that matter. But it is fairly easy to show a connection between religion and the restriction of the rights of others, look at the middle east for clues...

 

You have also made an assertion that atheism = Social Darwinism, can you support that? Social Darwinism is at best an antiquated belief system that has been shown to be less than optimal many years ago.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

 

Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones.

The name social Darwinism is a modern name given to the various theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, which, it is alleged, sought to apply biological concepts to sociology and politics.[1][2] The term social Darwinism gained widespread currency when used in 1944 to oppose these earlier concepts. Today, because of the negative connotations of the theory of social Darwinism, especially after the atrocities of the Second World War (including the Holocaust), few people would describe themselves as Social Darwinists and the term is generally seen as pejorative.[3]

Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism; but the ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[4] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[5][6]

Opponents of evolution theory have often maintained that social Darwinism is a logical entailment of a belief in evolutionary theory, while biologists and historians maintain that it is rather a perversion of Charles Darwin's ideas.[7] While most scholars recognize historical links between Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution[8] and that using biological evolution as a justification for policies of inequality amounts to committing the naturalistic fallacy.

 

Social Darwinism is an artifact of the past, had little if anything to do with atheism, and has long been discredited...

Edited August 18, 2012 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

The talk about Stalin and co just proves that dictatorships are bad whatever the religious ( or non- religious) beliefs of the dictator.

Not really relevant.

[randomc]

Communism attempted a transition from majority religious to majority atheist society. That it failed doesn't mean all atheist societies must, but it's pretty much the only reference we have for such a transition. Communism was atheistic in principle, but in practise religiosity reared up again in the form of personality cults.

 

Religiosity is in part the outcome of the motivation to pool decision making, particularly moral decision making. This motivation will exist with or without religion, and is likely to be exploited for power in an atheist society, as in communism.

 

The transition taking place now differs significantly from the communist attempt in that we have a far better quality of life; religiosity is strongly linked to poverty. I suppose this implies the motivation to pool decision making declines as well so maybe less of a problem.

 

Even so, i think it's going to be necessary to find a way to make sure the state can't exploit morality for power - moral authority needs to be kept seperate from exucutive authority. that's what the commies failed to do.

[John Cuthber]

Stalin and Mao didn't create true communist states (and I don't think anyone could).

"All men equal, but Party members more equal than the others" isn't true communism.

In a way, a society where the more strongly you shout about your faith in the party the better your chances of success, looks more religious than a typical Western democracy.

 

Cross out "the bible" and put in "the little red book" in its place and it's easy to see the "communist" states as religious dictatorships without a God.

 

It's also worth noting that those groups haven't survived very well.

The Soviet Union has collapsed and Chinese rule only survives by the oppression of its people.

Neither of those looks like much of a "society" to me.

So, in short, we haven't really tried a society based on atheist principles.

[randomc]

If prevalence of belief in a supernatural agent is low, it's an atheistic society isn't it?

 

But the transition to atheism was a peripheral thing in communism even in principle, so could definitely make too much of it. In terms of religiosity i don't suppose there was much of a decline outside of party members anyway.

 

I just thought communism might be an example that there could be some parallel in atheistic society to religiosity in terms of the extent people are prepared to invest in group consensus, and that it might be difficult to deal with.

[John Cuthber]

If prevalence of belief in a supernatural agent is low, it's an atheistic society isn't it?

 

But the transition to atheism was a peripheral thing in communism even in principle, so could definitely make too much of it. In terms of religiosity i don't suppose there was much of a decline outside of party members anyway.

 

I just thought communism might be an example that there could be some parallel in atheistic society to religiosity in terms of the extent people are prepared to invest in group consensus, and that it might be difficult to deal with.

I rather doubt that somehow, just as the communists came to power, everyone suddenly stopped believing in God.

So if the criterion for an atheist society is the lack of "prevalence of belief in a supernatural agent" then most communist countries were probably never atheist anyway.

[randomc]

They did make the attempt though, and religiosity jsut sort of morphed. Is it so unreasonable to suggest that even in a true atheist society, people who are disposed toward religiosity will also be disposed toward ceding autonomy to institutions other than religions, such as governments?

Edited August 19, 2012 by randomc

[tar]

Some religious teachings assert that all human life matters. The converse of this is Social Darwinism that considers some lives unsuitable to continue to support. Personally I would prefer living in a society based on religious beliefs that protected human life than an atheistic society that relied on euthanasia to rid itself of the burden of the physically and mentally disabled.

 

Bill Angel,

 

 

 

 

Human beings feel quite strongly about protecting and helping other humans in need. Even humans that do not believe in the God of the Bible, believe this.

 

Why could you not have simply said "I would prefer living in a society that protected human life than a society that relied on euthanasia to rid itself of the burden of the physically and mentally disabled."

 

It seems to me you are trying to equate the belief in evolution with belief in euthanasia. I personally do not see the equivalence and since I am an atheist and also would prefer to live in a society that protected its weak, I am proof that a believer in evolution can be a disbeliever in God, and still be a protector of the weak.

 

The only difference between an atheist and a religious person, in this particular argument is that the atheist does the right thing, because its the right thing to do, and the religious person does the right thing because God told him it was the right thing to do.

 

It might be said that the atheist just cuts out the middle man, and goes right to doing the right thing.

And considering the lack of evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible, and the great deal of evidence for personality cults, and other humans (priests, mulahs, wise men, sages, prophets and the like), playing the role of "middle man" in "causing" a human to do a thing, that others might judge to be right or be wrong, I would think it more sensible to think that human judgment is something a human can exercise by him or herself, and overrule the judgement of ANY middleman.

 

Regards, TAR

[ecoli]

Denmark and Sweden can't have been significantly non-religious for more than a couple of generations, so the most you could assert as strong fact is that atheistic societies needn't immediately decline into chaos.

 

So, rapid (which you define as a few generations) political change is too quick for the inevitable descent into atheistic chaos when the examples are modern Denmark and Sweden, but rapid change turning into chaos is valid evidence with regards to Nazi Germany and the USSR?

 

Even if these were good examples, you'd still be cherry picking the data.

[randomc]

So, rapid (which you define as a few generations) political change is too quick for the inevitable descent into atheistic chaos when the examples are modern Denmark and Sweden, but rapid change turning into chaos is valid evidence with regards to Nazi Germany and the USSR?

 

I don't think i argued for an inevitable decline.

 

I didn't mention nazis or germany either, and any reference to the ussr was at most implied. I just thought communism might be an interesting case study for societies movining toward majority atheism. Which isn't to say that communism failed because of atheism, or even that it was truly an athesitic society (i tacitly assumed so occasionaly in earlier posts which was incorrect). There was a restructuring of critical institutions, and i think any society moving from religious to atheist will quite likely undergo some such restructuring.

 

Denmark and Sweden hasn't yet, so i don't see them as a useful guide, a couple of generations is not enough time to consider them successful atheist societies. OK, so they are much better examples of atheistic society than communism, in the sense that they are in fact athesitic societies whereas communist weren't really. I'm contradicting what i said in other posts but they were already a mess of contradictions and non-sequiturs anyway, so yeah.

 

Even if these were good examples, you'd still be cherry picking the data.

 

I'm not trying to show that atheist society is inherently inferior/superior, just to think about what some of the changes might be in order to make a success of it. Religiosity is declining what with better education and better standards of living regardless.

[ecoli]

I don't think i argued for an inevitable decline.

 

I didn't mention nazis or germany either, and any reference to the ussr was at most implied. I just thought communism might be an interesting case study for societies movining toward majority atheism. Which isn't to say that communism failed because of atheism, or even that it was truly an athesitic society (i tacitly assumed so occasionaly in earlier posts which was incorrect). There was a restructuring of critical institutions, and i think any society moving from religious to atheist will quite likely undergo some such restructuring.

 

Denmark and Sweden hasn't yet, so i don't see them as a useful guide, a couple of generations is not enough time to consider them successful atheist societies. OK, so they are much better examples of atheistic society than communism, in the sense that they are in fact athesitic societies whereas communist weren't really. I'm contradicting what i said in other posts but they were already a mess of contradictions and non-sequiturs anyway, so yeah.

 

 

 

I'm not trying to show that atheist society is inherently inferior/superior, just to think about what some of the changes might be in order to make a success of it. Religiosity is declining what with better education and better standards of living regardless.

 

My brain accidentally merged yours and Bill Angel's posts: it was he who made the comparison to Nazi germany as well as the other, stronger, claims. My apologies.

[afungusamongus]

I would consider Nazi Germany to have been an atheistic society, as the Nazis had no intention of allowing a moral code derived from religious beliefs to constrain their actions.

 

Consider this quote.

 

When we National Socialists speak of belief in God, we do not mean, like the naive Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe. The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God. The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest.

 

It was a confidential message to the Gauleiter on June 9, 1941 written by Martin Bormann.

 

So far you have failed to make a connection between atheism and euthanasia or any restriction of the rights of others for that matter. But it is fairly easy to show a connection between religion and the restriction of the rights of others, look at the middle east for clues...

 

Look at China for North Korea for clues of mass murder. What do you think those governments have in common? Last time I checked it was not Christians who where publicly executing people in tiananmen square.

Edited August 21, 2012 by afungusamongus