Why I am an atheist

[MaxVel]

It's a non sequitur. Your question is based on the presupposition that if one denies that God exists, then one will not be able to "objectively measure good" (whatever that means) and "objectively determine what is 'progress' for a society" (whatever that means). That presupposition is a non sequitur.

You're over-reading. I asked a simple question to find out which objective moral system Starlight was using to measure Christianity against.

And yes, questions can presuppose a claim. It's called [I]implication by question[/I



You're moving the goalposts. For the purposes of rebutting your point, it's irrelevant which one of those is the right one.

Umm... you're rebutting a 'point' I wasn't making. So it is relevant, since that's what I'd like Starlight to tell me. Elsewhere he mentioned utilitarianism, so I'm guessing that's what he's measuring Christianity by.

What matters is that those examples rebut your presupposition that if one rejects the existence of God, then moral objectivism is off the table.

Not my presupposition. Try reading what I posted with more charity and less presupposing you think you already know what I'm trying to discuss. It might help if you went back to my earlier posts to Starlight.

Those examples show that there are other options on the table, options you have not addressed.



Something incoherent/self-contradictory that conflates metaphysical interpretations of "objective" and "subjective", with epistemic interpretations of those terms.

Yeah, that clears it up. Still don't know if you understand me, but I'm thinking you don't.

[Darth Ovious]

orConversely you were focusing just on the secular form of it by removing reference to the evils of religious totalitarianism as listed by Starlight.

And Starlight did the same thing but with religions. There is no point in talking to you because you are a stubborn mule who hates religious people.

Communism is not a force in the West, whereas religion is (although declining), so why attend Communist forums?

Well in Australia where you are from religion doesn't seem to play a part either. As for Thailand, well you moved there so it's your fault in you live in a religious country in the first place. Obviously Thailand isn't that bad a place for you to live.



Didn't see that when I was there. I think you are probably exaggerating slightly when you say they are "all over the place". There are clearly more statues dedicated to Buddha than there is to Ganesh but then what's it to you? You chose to live there in that religious country so it can't be all that bad.


And what do you think Starlight was implying when he grouped all religions together in one basket? This is where the point flew over your head Tassman. I said to him he shouldn't group all religions together because they DON'T all believe the same thing and it's not like atheists don't decide for themselves what is right or wrong either. They usually decide through groups like the Humanist movement or decide along with others in their own society.

...you mean debating? Isn't that's what Discussion Boards are all about?

Not debating, more like being a Jerk.

your religion of course.

Then why are you challenging what I said to Starlight? Do you agree with his post? You have a go at me for "dishonestly changing his post" when the whole point of why I did that was to pull him up for labelling all religion as dangerous and harmful in the first place. I also seem to remember that you have argued this principle in the past but you seem to be telling me that you don't believe this considering your statement here. Perhaps you have changed your mind in that regard.



That doesn't disprove what I said. If a person is debating a point they dislike because they think it's harmful then the only real reason they can be on a message board arguing with all the people that think differently is to have a go at them.


You're very close to going on my ignore list. Reason being is because it seems to me you are picking a fight with me for something in which starlight started. Apparently you are telling me you don't think religion is evil and harmful, that it's just wrong but the original point you challenged was when I pointed out to starlight that atheists can do bad things as well and you seem to take an offence to that. Why don't you tell Starlight not to start the fight in the first place then?

[Darth Ovious]

Because he's using the terms "objective" and "subjective" in multiple ambiguous ways, that conflate metaphysical meanings of those terms with epistem meanings of those terms. That, and the fact that he isn't using the terms in the way they are used in meta-ethics to characterize things like moral objectivism and moral subjectivism.

So, perhaps you both define your terms then?

I would use objective as to mean fact and subjective as to mean opinion.

[Tassman]

And Starlight did the same thing but with religions.

What Starlight did was list some of the evils done in the name of religion, which you countered by listing many of the evils done by secular societies. What I did was note that any form of totalitarianism, whether religious or secular, tends to result in social iniquities due to the demand for rigid conformity.

There is no point in talking to you because you are a stubborn mule who hates religious people.

I'm sorry you think me stubborn. Far from hating religious people I have many close friends who are deeply religious.

Well in Australia where you are from religion doesn't seem to play a part either. As for Thailand, well you moved there so it's your fault in you live in a religious country in the first place. Obviously Thailand isn't that bad a place for you to live.

Didn't see that when I was there. I think you are probably exaggerating slightly when you say they are "all over the place". There are clearly more statues dedicated to Buddha than there is to Ganesh but then what's it to you? You chose to live there in that religious country so it can't be all that bad.

whatever the god.

And what do you think Starlight was implying when he grouped all religions together in one basket? This is where the point flew over your head Tassman. I said to him he shouldn't group all religions together because they DON'T all believe the same thing .

and it's not like atheists don't decide for themselves what is right or wrong either. They usually decide through groups like the Humanist movement or decide along with others in their own society

Atheists, generally accept the social mores of the community to which they belong, as opposed to following the doctrinaire beliefs of a particular religion.

Not debating, more like being a Jerk.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Then why are you challenging what I said to Starlight? Do you agree with his post? You have a go at me for "dishonestly changing his post" when the whole point of why I did that was to pull him up for labelling all religion as dangerous and harmful in the first place. I also seem to remember that you have argued this principle in the past but you seem to be telling me that you don't believe this considering your statement here. Perhaps you have changed your mind in that regard.

I consider that ALL demands for totalitarian ideologies potentially dangerous and harmful whether for a religious theocracy such as Christian Reconstructionism or a secular ideology such as Communism.

That doesn't disprove what I said. If a person is debating a point they dislike because they think it's harmful then the only real reason they can be on a message board arguing with all the people that think differently is to have a go at them.

You're very close to going on my ignore list. Reason being is because it seems to me you are picking a fight with me for something in which starlight started. Apparently you are telling me you don't think religion is evil and harmful, that it's just wrong but the original point you challenged was when I pointed out to starlight that atheists can do bad things as well and you seem to take an offence to that. Why don't you tell Starlight not to start the fight in the first place then?

I saw it as joining in the discussion, not "picking a fight".

[Darth Ovious]

What Starlight did was list some of the evils done in the name of religion, which you countered by listing many of the evils done by secular societies. What I did was note that any form of totalitarianism, whether religious or secular, tends to result in social iniquities due to the demand for rigid conformity.

Where is your post to Starlight about this?

I'm sorry you think me stubborn. Far from hating religious people I have many close friends who are deeply religious.

Well I only have your past performance on this board to judge with.



Once again for the last sentence here I only have your past performance on this message board to judge with.

whatever the god.

They don't know yet who is responsible for the bombing yesterday. What I saw on the news was that it is a popular tourist place and it's possible the tourists were being targeted. As for the bold, this is not valid since Muslim extremists do not equate to all religions or all gods for that matter. Modern extremists are mostly a product or perceived interference from the west on other countries affairs. This is equivalent to saying atheism is dangerous because any violence can be perpetrated by the state carrying out their will.



If you want I can reword your statement here just like I did with starlight's.

Atheists, generally accept the social mores of the community to which they belong, as opposed to following the doctrinaire beliefs of a particular religion.

Society indoctrinates as well. Indoctrination is not inherently a bad thing. What is being indoctrinated in the first place is what is to be evaluated.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

It would help if you understood that starlight started this point and I was only challenging him on it. It would also help if you didn't then try to defend his point like you do above. Remember what he said.

And Christians, living out what they firmly believe to be biblical teachings, have done the following:
* Burned heretics at the stake
* Killed the infidel
* Endorsed slavery
* Endorsed genocide
* Endorsed apartheid / segregation
* Endorsed torture
* Executed gay people for being gay
* Denied the possibility of marital rape
* Endorsed the subservience of women to men

Religion makes the possibility of immoral actions more scary-dangerous not less, because not only do people still do the same wrongs, but they can be encouraged to do those wrongs by their stone-age holy book, and believe that in doing those actions they are actually doing right because they think they are doing God's will. Religion is what gives us Islamic terrorists. When it boils down to it, my ultimate reason for finally rejecting Christianity was essentially that so many Christians were acting immorally because of their religion - their religion was actively encouraging them to do immoral actions that they wouldn't otherwise have done. Whereas an atheist may or may not be a good person, but at least they are not actively encouraged to be immoral by a stone-age holy book that depicts God ordering genocides on a regular basis and advocates stoning gay people.

Certainly sounds like he thinks we are all evil.

I consider that ALL demands for totalitarian ideologies potentially dangerous and harmful whether for a religious theocracy such as Christian Reconstructionism or a secular ideology such as Communism.

Glad to hear.



It's not merely disagreement we are talking about here. We are talking about debating with people who are perceived to be evil and immoral and do bad things. There is no way a person doing that can debate with those without "having a go" at them of some sorts. Also it's quite clear that this is what is happening because it's not like starlight is civil in what he says and your dialogue on this board also demonstrates this although you may believe that it doesn't. Fine if you want to have a go and you think we are somewhat bad but I really don't care. People who are not interested in proper discussion can go on my ignore list.

I saw it as joining in the discussion, not "picking a fight".

Well you can "join in the discussion" with starlight as well. Probably not a good idea to talk to me since I'm not your biggest fan.

[Starlight]

It would help if you understood that starlight started this point and I was only challenging him on it. It would also help if you didn't then try to defend his point like you do above. Remember what he said.

Certainly sounds like he thinks we are all evil.

My point was this: Prior to religious influences, some humans are inclined to do good to others, and some are inclined to not. Some are inclined to fall into an in-group mentality and be suspicious of and persecute anyone who's not like them, and others are inclined to be more generous and accepting of all. Those base inclinations can be affected through rational dialog if people are open to considering evidence and thinking through the implications of their actions.

However, religion has a disturbing tendency to close the door on rethinking positions and rational analysis. Discussion tends to both begin and end with "the bible says..." / "God's will is...". That tends to shut down rational thought about the pros and cons of different positions, and recasts them in a dangerous light: God's will vs not God's will, with no regard for nor interest in human wellbeing. That's a terrible form of moral reasoning, and it can never lead to social improvement past a certain point because those people can never improve beyond what their own holy book says. I could put up with that if the specific things that a religion taught were always good things... but unfortunately they aren't. Instead of acting as a brake on the worst of natural human impulses, religion has all too often functioned as an accelerator for them.

Let's consider the recent gay rights debacle. Going back 70 years or so, the widespread attitude among both non-religious people and Christians was "gay people are weird, they're not like me, I'm suspicious of them and don't like them... so I'll oppose them having rights". As time moved forward, the attitude among non-religious people became "I've learned that science has found gay people are normal, and I actually know some people who are gay and they're nice people... so I now support them having rights". ie they responded to evidence and updated their position accordingly. Let's consider the question of: How did religious teachings impact social acceptance of gay people? Did it (a) encourage believers to see beyond the base human desire to create in-groups and out-groups, and to love everyone, and embrace those who were being rejected by society and fight for their rights? Or (b) encourage believers to say "the bible says X about gays, therefore X", and maintain a firm anti-gay stance in the face of all evidence and reason, and to fight as hard as they could against social acceptance of a minority group? The answer, sadly, is that most went with "b" (although very gradually we are now seeing more and more Christians reluctantly adopting a pro-gay stance). But basically religion acted as a massive brake on people rethinking their views, and led people to take immoral and evil positions and held them back from considering evidence and reason and actually reaching sensible views on the subject like the atheists were doing.

And looking back at history, we can see plenty of other times where religion was able to use "God's will" or "the bible says" to promote or endorse immoral causes that resulted in bad things happening that would not have otherwise have happened, or resulted in them happening much for and for longer than they would otherwise have done. Religion thus often acts as a force for evil, both by suppressing reasoned consideration of the issue, and by actively advocating for evil positions because "the bible says".

[MaxVel]

My point was this: Prior to religious influences, some humans are inclined to do good to others, and some are inclined to not. Some are inclined to fall into an in-group mentality and be suspicious of and persecute anyone who's not like them, and others are inclined to be more generous and accepting of all. Those base inclinations can be affected through rational dialog if people are open to considering evidence and thinking through the implications of their actions.

However, religion has a disturbing tendency to close the door on rethinking positions and rational analysis. Discussion tends to both begin and end with "the bible says..." / "God's will is...". That tends to shut down rational thought about the pros and cons of different positions, and recasts them in a dangerous light: God's will vs not God's will, with no regard for nor interest in human wellbeing. That's a terrible form of moral reasoning, and it can never lead to social improvement past a certain point because those people can never improve beyond what their own holy book says. I could put up with that if the specific things that a religion taught were always good things... but unfortunately they aren't. Instead of acting as a brake on the worst of natural human impulses, religion has all too often functioned as an accelerator for them.

Let's consider the recent gay rights debacle. Going back 70 years or so, the widespread attitude among both non-religious people and Christians was "gay people are weird, they're not like me, I'm suspicious of them and don't like them... so I'll oppose them having rights". As time moved forward, the attitude among non-religious people became "I've learned that science has found gay people are normal, and I actually know some people who are gay and they're nice people... so I now support them having rights". ie they responded to evidence and updated their position accordingly. Let's consider the question of: How did religious teachings impact social acceptance of gay people? Did it (a) encourage believers to see beyond the base human desire to create in-groups and out-groups, and to love everyone, and embrace those who were being rejected by society and fight for their rights? Or (b) encourage believers to say "the bible says X about gays, therefore X", and maintain a firm anti-gay stance in the face of all evidence and reason, and to fight as hard as they could against social acceptance of a minority group? The answer, sadly, is that most went with "b" (although very gradually we are now seeing more and more Christians reluctantly adopting a pro-gay stance). But basically religion acted as a massive brake on people rethinking their views, and led people to take immoral and evil positions and held them back from considering evidence and reason and actually reaching sensible views on the subject like the atheists were doing.

And looking back at history, we can see plenty of other times where religion was able to use "God's will" or "the bible says" to promote or endorse immoral causes that resulted in bad things happening that would not have otherwise have happened, or resulted in them happening much for and for longer than they would otherwise have done. Religion thus often acts as a force for evil, both by suppressing reasoned consideration of the issue, and by actively advocating for evil positions because "the bible says".

Just about anything can be used for good or ill, depending on the person who uses it, and their motives and intentions. That seems to me to be a fault with people rather than with things per se.


But, more importantly,

What's the objectively true moral standard (IOW, true for everyone, regardless of whether they agree to it or not) that you're using to make this moral evaluation of religion?

If you haven't got such a standard - 'Here, this here, is good, and that, that there, is evil.' - or if you deny that such standards can exist at all, then your argument is fatally flawed. Without such a standard, you're in effect arguing that 'God doesn't exist because He doesn't agree with me on my moral values.' That's no more rational than saying 'Obama isn't the President, because I believe Presidents should be above reproach, and Obama isn't.'

[Starlight]

Just about anything can be used for good or ill, depending on the person who uses it, and their motives and intentions. That seems to me to be a fault with people rather than with things per se.

Almost anything can be used as an excuse, yes. But if religion itself can provide a convenient excuse for people to be nasty to others, then that is in itself a problem. More generally speaking, we need to look at how religion affects peoples behavior and ask ourselves if overall it is affecting it in a positive or negative way.

My major concern, outlined above, is that religion discourages people from looking at real-world data about the pros and cons of their actions and actually considering the harms/benefits their actions cause to people, and instead tends to lead them to evaluate their actions based purely on their interpretation of what they think a book says or what they think God thinks. And that is extremely dangerous because once people get it into their heads that God wants them to be nasty to, or kill, group X, then it becomes exceptionally difficult to convince them not to do that.

Without such a standard, you're in effect arguing that 'God doesn't exist because He doesn't agree with me on my moral values.'

That was not at all, in any way, the argument I was making. Regardless of what moral standard you use, it is clear that people of various different religions who believe God has told them to do a lot of different things cannot all be morally correct. eg the Muslim terrorists who believe God is willing them to fly planes into buildings are immoral. The way religion interacts with morality is dangerous because it leads to people believing God is telling them to do dumb stuff and since 'what God wants' is the only standard of morality that these people have, they don't think about the impacts of their actions on other people the way a non-religious person might.

By contrast, non-religious morality, which nearly always boils down to something along the lines of "act well toward others" (or to dress it up slightly more philosophically: "maximize well-being and minimize harm in an equitable way"), pays attention to the real world and causes people to base decisions on facts and evidence and logic rather than whatever they believe God is telling them to do today, or whatever they think today that some book written thousands of years ago happens to say.

[JimL]

Just about anything can be used for good or ill, depending on the person who uses it, and their motives and intentions. That seems to me to be a fault with people rather than with things per se.

I think his point was that religion is structured that way, i.e. in a way that doesn't allow for rational dialogue. Not that the religious are evil, but that you have a very difficult time changing your minds, even in the light of reason. Sort of like republicans.

[Tassman]

They don't know yet who is responsible for the bombing yesterday. What I saw on the news was that it is a popular tourist place and it's possible the tourists were being targeted.

Yes, it's likely that tourism was being targeted, just as it was in Tunisia and Egypt etc. and by the same people, i.e. Muslim extremists, and for the same religion-based reasons.

As for the bold, this is not valid since Muslim extremists do not equate to all religions or all gods for that matter. Modern extremists are mostly a product or perceived interference from the west on other countries affairs. This is equivalent to saying atheism is dangerous because any violence can be perpetrated by the state carrying out their will.

All religions have their extremists because gods demand total obedience. The Muslim extremists are the ones in focus nowadays but Christian have had a less than glorious history in this regard.

Society indoctrinates as well. Indoctrination is not inherently a bad thing. What is being indoctrinated in the first place is what is to be evaluated.

Communities acculturate their young into the mores of their community, but religion has the power to inculcate absolutist values demanding extreme responses.

It would help if you understood that starlight started this point and I was only challenging him on it. It would also help if you didn't then try to defend his point like you do above. Remember what he said.

Originally Posted by Starlight View Post

And Christians, living out what they firmly believe to be biblical teachings, have done the following:
* Burned heretics at the stake
* Killed the infidel
* Endorsed slavery
* Endorsed genocide
* Endorsed apartheid / segregation
* Endorsed torture
* Executed gay people for being gay
* Denied the possibility of marital rape
* Endorsed the subservience of women to men

Certainly sounds like he thinks we are all evil.

No it doesn't, it sounds like he believes that Christianity has done evil things in its name. It has. Everything on Starlight's list is true, do you deny it?

It's not merely disagreement we are talking about here. We are talking about debating with people who are perceived to be evil and immoral and do bad things. There is no way a person doing that can debate with those without "having a go" at them of some sorts. Also it's quite clear that this is what is happening because it's not like starlight is civil in what he says and your dialogue on this board also demonstrates this although you may believe that it doesn't. Fine if you want to have a go and you think we are somewhat bad but I really don't care. People who are not interested in proper discussion can go on my ignore list.

Sadly, most societies have done evil and bad things in the past. Australia treated it's Aborigine's abominably and the same applies to the treatment of Native Americans in the US etc. Does this mean we can't have reasonable discussions with Australians or Americans...of course not.

Well you can "join in the discussion" with starlight as well. Probably not a good idea to talk to me since I'm not your biggest fan.

Well you can't win 'em all.

[Adrift]

It's because of religion that rational dialogue exists at all. Christianity was born in a world of might makes right. Where treating foreigners, and women, and captives of war, and the poor as subspecies was the rule, not the exception. In most of the world, in most of the time that humans have been on earth there have been the haves and the have nots, and that was almost entirely determined by the rank, sex, and social class you were born into. It was because of Christianity's axioms of "love your enemy, and pray for those who persecute you", of "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female in Christ", of "the last will be the first, and the first will be the last" that we are having any dialogue at all. Atheism didn't do that. Religion did. Specifically Christianity did that. And the only reason that people can sit around and moan about how bad religion is is because of the freedom afforded by Christianity to investigate one's beliefs, and to investigate the natural world, and to rise above your social standing.

[MaxVel]

Almost anything can be used as an excuse, yes. But if religion itself can provide a convenient excuse for people to be nasty to others, then that is in itself a problem. More generally speaking, we need to look at how religion affects peoples behavior and ask ourselves if overall it is affecting it in a positive or negative way.

My major concern, outlined above, is that religion discourages people from looking at real-world data about the pros and cons of their actions and actually considering the harms/benefits their actions cause to people, and instead tends to lead them to evaluate their actions based purely on their interpretation of what they think a book says or what they think God thinks. And that is extremely dangerous because once people get it into their heads that God wants them to be nasty to, or kill, group X, then it becomes exceptionally difficult to convince them not to do that.

That was not at all, in any way, the argument I was making. Regardless of what moral standard you use, it is clear that people of various different religions who believe God has told them to do a lot of different things cannot all be morally correct. eg the Muslim terrorists who believe God is willing them to fly planes into buildings are immoral. The way religion interacts with morality is dangerous because it leads to people believing God is telling them to do dumb stuff and since 'what God wants' is the only standard of morality that these people have, they don't think about the impacts of their actions on other people the way a non-religious person might.

By contrast, non-religious morality, which nearly always boils down to something along the lines of "act well toward others" (or to dress it up slightly more philosophically: "maximize well-being and minimize harm in an equitable way"), pays attention to the real world and causes people to base decisions on facts and evidence and logic rather than whatever they believe God is telling them to do today, or whatever they think today that some book written thousands of years ago happens to say.

I'll preface what I'm going to say by agreeing that it is a bad thing for people to march on through life without giving any serious thought to the moral choices they make, and the effects of those choices.

That said, I don't think that being religious necessarily precludes one from doing that. In particular, I think being a Christian, properly understood, requires one to be actively thinking through what you do, and why you're doing it. I think it requires a high degree of self-analysis and self-discipline. I don't, as a Christian, just adopt the religious moral stance of the day, and blindly follow it. I strongly think that doing that is not honouring to God, and an abdication of my privilege and responsibility as a free moral agent.

Elsewhere, IIRC, you discussed the difference between the OT and NT as being about the letter vs the spirit of the Law. I'm surprised (putting it mildly) that you can see that, and can't see that Christianity teaches the opposite of 'blindly following a set of moral rules' without regard to the real-world effects.


There's one other problem with your argument - basically it's a very large begged question. You're assuming that 'God's rules' are wrong because they don't reflect the mores and values of a world where there is no God. And you still need to show a moral standard that is objectively true, to underpin your moral criticisms of religious behavior, or your complaint is just that - I don't like the way religious people live, therefore religions are false.

[Starlight]

It's because of religion that rational dialogue exists at all. Christianity was born in a world of might makes right.

Yeah, it's not like Roman Law and justice were renowned throughout the known world for more than a millennium or anything. It's not like there were loads of famous Greek and Roman ethical philosophers. Those Greek and Roman civilizations had totally nothing of value and knew nothing of morality until those Christians showed up to teach them how they should really be executing those gay people.

In particular, I think being a Christian, properly understood, requires one to be actively thinking through what you do, and why you're doing it. I think it requires a high degree of self-analysis and self-discipline. I don't, as a Christian, just adopt the religious moral stance of the day, and blindly follow it. I strongly think that doing that is not honouring to God, and an abdication of my privilege and responsibility as a free moral agent.

Elsewhere, IIRC, you discussed the difference between the OT and NT as being about the letter vs the spirit of the Law. I'm surprised (putting it mildly) that you can see that, and can't see that Christianity teaches the opposite of 'blindly following a set of moral rules' without regard to the real-world effects.

What I think Christians ought to be and should do, based on my reading of the bible, is quite different to how the vast majority of Christians think they ought to act based on their reading of the bible. My own personal interpretation of the bible is irrelevant to the question of whether Christianity as taught and lived by its vast majority of adherents, is a net positive or negative force in the world.

or your complaint is just that - I don't like the way religious people live, therefore religions are false.

That argument is being made only in your imagination. Please stop trying to attribute it to me. Reread the original post. For a number of reasons I disbelieve in the existence of an interventionist deity. The reason you keep trying to suggest here is not one of those reasons. After ceasing to believe in the existence of God, I still continued to think that Christianity overall lead to people being helped rather than harmed in society, and felt that despite being an atheist I still was happy to see Christianity prosper and affect the way people were living and thinking. But after seeing the disaster that was Christianity vs gay rights I subsequently re-examined that line of thinking and looked again at the historical evidence and realized that on the whole Christianity has not been a particularly positive force in society, particularly not in the present day.

[Tassman]

It's because of religion that rational dialogue exists at all. Christianity was born in a world of might makes right. Where treating foreigners, and women, and captives of war, and the poor as subspecies was the rule, not the exception. In most of the world, in most of the time that humans have been on earth there have been the haves and the have nots, and that was almost entirely determined by the rank, sex, and social class you were born into. It was because of Christianity's axioms of "love your enemy, and pray for those who persecute you", of "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female in Christ", of "the last will be the first, and the first will be the last" that we are having any dialogue at all. Atheism didn't do that. Religion did. Specifically Christianity did that. And the only reason that people can sit around and moan about how bad religion is is because of the freedom afforded by Christianity to investigate one's beliefs, and to investigate the natural world, and to rise above your social standing.

[Starlight]

I just came across this really interesting piece written earlier this year about scientific studies on the morality of kids who grow up in non-religious families. It probably deserves its own thread, but it's highly relevant to the discussion here. The relevant bits:



Everything in that article seems very true in my experience. In particular, the utter lack of empathy among US religious conservatives is something that I have been saying for some time now on this forum that I find to be really really disturbing (to the point where I think it almost constitutes a psychopathic disorder on their part). The findings are all in line with my general view that religion does not particularly provide positive benefits for society when it comes to morality, when compared to non-religion.