When is it atheism?

[_dartagnan]

I do not think that those who read a little about the history of the Roman Empire, both Western and Eastern, after the conversion of Constantine will recognise dartagnan's picture of a kindly and pacifist organisation.

That isn't what I said, and I think you know that. I would simply observe that the Roman Empire expanded by conquest. However, since Christianity became the state religion, the Empire became more of a defender than an aggressor. Its territories were frequently invaded and even overrun. Over time, two thirds of its territories were lost to outside invasions, without the slightest effort to reclaim them - until the crusades.

And, so far as I can see, he seems to be under the impression that the crusades were launched by 'The Roman Empire'.

You seem to think it inappropriate to refer to Byzantium as the Roman Empire. Why? That is precisely how it was understood during that time.

The Roman Empire divided into Eastern and Western branches in 286, and the western branch was extinguished with the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476.

Is there supposed to be a point here, or are we just suppose to gauk at another straw man construction site?

Since the first crusade was not launched until 1095, the Western Roman Empire, as a political entity, played no part in any crusades

And I mentioned the "Western" Roman Empire, where exactly?

The later entity that called itself the 'Holy Roman Empire' has been well described as 'neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire'

And I mentioned the "Holy" Roman Empire, where exactly?

The eastern branch, with its capital at Constantinople, was a great and highly effective military power, which used a combination of force, diplomacy and bribery to maintain (and as far as possible expand) its frontiers against a series of adversaries such as the Persians, the Bulgars and the Arabs.

And?

In 1071 the empire made a great thrust against the rising power of the Seljuq Turks, and it was the disastrous failure of this attack at Manzikert which put the empire so much on the back foot that it called for help from the west. Hence the first crusade, whose results were by no means entirely welcome to the Eastern Emperor; instead of a disciplined mercenary force to add to his armies, there flooded across his empire a horde of what appeared to his citizens to be largely undisciplined barbarians.

That's because the primary intent was to rescue Jerusalem and save those in distress.

During the fourth crusade, in 1204, the soldiers of the cross (who had demanded a large payment from the emperor, which he had failed to pay) attacked and captured Constantinople, the capital of the Roman empire, and pillaged it savagely for three days.

Yes, against orders too. None of this was authorized. It was a tragedy, but I guess that's what's to be expected when you call thousands of volunteers off to battle, with no chain of command, no organization and no training beforehand.

"Defending the helpless as well as themselves"? "Withstood centuries of attacks from invading forces without fighting back"? Dartagnan is perfectly entitled to express his own views on such matters.

I'll just point out that this is becoming the more accepted view among historians. For example:

"New research has definitively shown that Crusaders were predominantly the first sons of Europe: wealthy, privileged, and pious. Crusading was extremely expensive and more than a few noble families risked bankruptcy in order to take part. They did so for medieval, not modern, reasons. Crusading for them was an act of love and charity by which, like the Good Samaritan, they were aiding their neighbors in distress. Muslim warriors had conquered eastern Christians, taken their lands, and in some cases killed or enslaved them. The Crusader believed it was his duty to right that wrong." - Crusaders and Historians, Thomas F. Madden (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=209)

Others are entitled to use his post as the basis for making a rough estimate (subject, no doubt, to later refinement) of how reliable his historical generalisations may be. It's a free board.

Wow. We really needed you to explain that to us. Thanks.

And all this time we thought we weren't free to decide for ourselves.

[_dartagnan]

The only inhibition that works well enough is the sincere morality of the person with the power.

That begs the question I think. Are people automatically endowed with an equal sense of morality? What about sociopaths? What is more likely to help, atheism or moral principles taught in religious contexts?

The whole idea that we need to be watched and threatened by invisible beings who very existence is questionable is repugnant to human dignity

I think that's a gross misrepresentation of religion in general, but even in these cases, you still have the situation where the religious belief encourages someone to act against natural temptation to act wrongly, whereas a lack of belief does nothing. Dawkins was right in this sense when he said the atheist is "freer." He is "free" in every sense, including to act immorally without consequence.

Good men and women act based on what they sincerely feel is right regardless of fear of hell.

Exactly. The fear of hell argument is a myth in itself I think. After all, most Christians believe they are forgiven if they repent anyway.

No, history does not show what atheist dictators feel nor does it show that atheism is the cause or even the catalyst for their actions.

I didn't say it was the cause or catalyst. I don't know how many times I have to say this. What history shows, at the very least, is that atheist dictators are more likely to commit such atrocities. That they feel it is alright seems reasonable to assume since they do it. Why would a dictator do anything he felt wasn't right?

Your statement embodies an implicit theory about why a dictator does what he does and what he feels! It is an unsubstantiated theory that just comes from prejudices about what deters people from doing evil.

But it is an established fact that religious belief deters some people from doing evil. It doesn't deter all, but it does deter a great many. Atheism on teh other hand, deters none. Therefore, it is no surprise to see that an atheistic dictator is a hundred or perhaps a thousand times more likely to kill his own population.

The idea that it is the fear of God that motivates people to do good and deters them from doing evil is part of a religious worldview.

I have said nothing about a fear of God. Most Christians I know love their neighbors because they genuinely want to mimick Jesus. It has nothing to do with fearing hell. They have conditoned themselves to feel charity and love towards others because that is what Jesus taught. Love your enemy. I suppose you could argue it has to do with their desire to go to heaven, but even still, it is a worthy endeavor that is religion caused. Religion does so much for the individual that atheism cannot.

I mean no matter how whacky your religious family might seem to you, I think once you've had a taste of non-religious upbringing, you'd appreciate how wonderful they really are by comparison. So many kids turn out to be rotten eggs in society because of the way they were raised in broken homes, exposed early on to crime, drugs, prostitution, etc. Can atheism help any of this? Not only can religion help, religion does.

Case in point, the transition from theist to atheist had zero effect on my likelihood to do wrong or right.

And why should it?

It is impossible to analyze yourself that way. As far as you know, your theistic background has been instrumental the the develop your moral self. Just because you gave up theism doesn't mean you can just as easily change the kind of person you are and become immoral. And nobody here is saying atheism is synonymous with immorality anyway. Your statement above is workingbackwards from what I have been saying. Bad people without religion are more likely to become better people with religion. But not all people without religion are bad. Some are better than other religious people. I am saying that atheism does nothing to make a bad person a better person.

For example, I would not decide questions about politics based on the idea that Jesus will be returning soon.

I don't know anyone who does.

Indeed, as a religious person, I might have held ideas merely on faith such as the idea that God will save us or that Jesus is returning soon. This could have affected my vote on public policies regarding conservation and long term social and environmental goals.

Yea, I see that point. But I'm not entirely sympathetic to it. I wasn't a fan of the flick, "Day After Tomorrow."

So, let me be clear. For me, it is not atheism against theism per se but rather
1. rational skeptical thinking against credulous faith based thinking.
2. the authentic desire to act morally as opposed to inauthentic fear-based pseudo-morality.

Your second point is a straw man. Sure, some theists may "believe" for fear of hell, but I believe all theists become better people, morally and socially, because they want to mimick Jesus. That has nothing to do with fearing hell because they feel Christians don't go to hell.

I believe that they would remain enthusiastically moral even if they lost thier faith in the supernatural.

See, you're talking about somethng different. Whether atheism can make a good person worse. That isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying atheism does nothing to make a bad person better, whereas religion obviously does. And I think this pisses off a lot of atheists because there really is no way to around against this. It is a point that even Sam Harris has to concede.

[_Tarski]

I didn't say it was the cause or catalyst. I don't know how many times I have to say this. What history shows, at the very least, is that atheist dictators are more likely to commit such atrocities. That they feel it is alright seems reasonable to assume since they do it. Why would a dictator do anything he felt wasn't right?

Why is the word atheist in there????

Why not

What history shows, at the very least, is that modern dictators are more likely to commit such atrocities. That they feel it is alright seems reasonable to assume since they do it.

or

What history shows, at the very least, is that marxist dictators are more likely to commit such atrocities. That they feel it is alright seems reasonable to assume since they do it.

or

What history shows, at the very least, is that short dictators are more likely to commit such atrocities. That they feel it is alright seems reasonable to assume since they do it.

You see, these dictators you have in mind had more in common than atheism. The fact that you use the word atheist shows that you think that this is the crucial feature. But that's exactly the question isn't it? You beg the question and thereby display a prior prejudice.

[_dartagnan]

Whether a dictator is short, modern or marxist cannot be the cause for his actions since we have already established that the cause isn't beliefs, but rather human nature itself. What I am talking about now is the absence of a requisite inhibitor. Religion is successful in making bad people better people, and it can work to inhibit a human's tendency to commit genocide on his own people. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the dictators of the past century who killed their own population, lacked this inhibitor. And by lacking the inhibitor, we are talking about lacking religion (i.e. being an atheist).

OK, enough for tonight.

[_Tarski]

Whether a dictator is short, modern or marxist cannot be the cause for his actions since we have already established that the cause isn't beliefs, but rather human nature itself. What I am talking about now is the absence of a requisite inhibitor. Religion is successful in making bad people better people, and it can work to inhibit a human's tendency to commit genocide on his own people. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the dictators of the past century who killed their own population, lacked this inhibitor. And by lacking the inhibitor, we are talking about lacking religion (I.e. being an atheist).
.

I don't believe it. All, one needs is a belief in right and wrong and desire to act morally and these are just as easy to teach as religion. (Hey, that was a damn good point if I do say so myself)

Besides, the Santa story helps keep kids from being naughty but that is a hardly a good argument for keeping kids believing the Santa story for as long as possible.

[_The Dude]

What history shows, at the very least, is that atheist dictators are more likely to commit such atrocities.

Which leaders count as dictators? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, who else? Saddam. Brazil had a military dictatorship for while. Was Brigham Young a dictator?

Which actions count as atrocities? The holocaust. The Cultural Revolution? Darfur? Kosovo and Bosnia? Invading Iraq the second time? Mountain Meadows? 9-11?

Now which leaders were atheists? Which definition of atheism should we count for this, strong atheism or weak?

Somehow I expect we will end up drawing a list of so-called dictators, make "atrocity" part of defining who goes on that list, and then take whatever deifinition of "atheism" makes the list run the longest. Then declare Dart the winner.

[_The Dude]

What I am talking about now is the absence of a requisite inhibitor. Religion is successful in making bad people better people, and it can work to inhibit a human's tendency to commit genocide on his own people.

Emphasis mine.

So are saying Religion makes people better and lack of religion makes them worse, or it fails to make them better. This would be a distinction without a difference in network terms.

Well, it seems to me your equation functions as bigotry against atheists even if you posit religion as a "modifier" instead of a prime mover of human nature. What's the difference? As a rule of thumb skeptics aren't as good as believers, from your point of view.

[_Chap]

I do not think that those who read a little about the history of the Roman Empire, both Western and Eastern, after the conversion of Constantine will recognise dartagnan's picture of a kindly and pacifist organisation.

That isn't what I said, and I think you know that. I would simply observe that the Roman Empire expanded by conquest. However, since Christianity became the state religion, the Empire became more of a defender than an aggressor. Its territories were frequently invaded and even overrun. Over time, two thirds of its territories were lost to outside invasions, without the slightest effort to reclaim them - until the crusades.

This is then followed by much interlinear and mostly purely exclamatory rhetoric of the kind that I think many readers of this board will have got into the habit of skipping over ...

Well, you see, what dartagnan originally said was:

The Roman Empire, using Christianity as a symbol, withstood centuries of attacks from invading forces without fighting back, probably because they were a Christian empire. It sat back and watched two thirds of its territory get taken over by invading forces before it finally made an aggressive move with the crusades. Now if the Roman Empire wasn't Christian, would they have waited so long before fighting back? I can't think of any Empire in recorded history that would have sat by and watched that take place. Certainly no atheistic Empire would have done that. But Christianity encouraged pacifism, and it was only in the face of inevitable destruction that the crusades were called.

The new dartagnan post seems as historically odd as the first. Now we are told that "two thirds of [the empire's] territories were lost to outside invasions, without the slightest effort to reclaim them - until the crusades". And apparently this is due to the fact that "Christianity encouraged pacifism". May one mention Justinian in the 6th century, and the great reconquest attempts directed against the Muslims in the 9th and 10th centuries, just as examples? No-one who got in the way of an attack from the armies of the Christian empire would have felt they were dealing with mild-mannered practitioners of the gospel. May we recall that those armies had an early form of napalm at their disposal the so-called 'Greek Fire'? The Christians showed no signs of being less willing to attack their enemies (when they were able) than those enemies were willing to attack them.

I prefer, once more, to leave board readers to make up their own minds about whether dartagan's historical generalisations - or indeed his generalisations about historians - are likely to be reliable, after reading both our posts. I hope he won't mind my doing that.

[_beastie]

Two quickies -

1 - it is not theism that creates more impulses for engaging in charitable acts, but the attachment to an organized structure partly dedicated to charitable acts that allows expression for those instincts in a "larger" way that is more noticed by society. There are secular organizations also dedicated to charitable acts or other acts beneficial to society (such as disease research) but due to the fact that individuals do not self-identify by those groups, they're not going to get the same credit for encouraging people to do good.

dart, you yourself said that hell isn't a factor in behavior because believers think they will be forgiven. But people are just as likely to think they will be forgiven for NOT doing "good" as they are to think they will be forgiven for actively doing EVIL.

2 - dart, if you lost all belief in any godbeing, would you be less inclined to do good? Would you be more inclined to harm others?

[_beastie]

I mean no matter how whacky your religious family might seem to you, I think once you've had a taste of non-religious upbringing, you'd appreciate how wonderful they really are by comparison. So many kids turn out to be rotten eggs in society because of the way they were raised in broken homes, exposed early on to crime, drugs, prostitution, etc. Can atheism help any of this? Not only can religion help, religion does.

Aside from the fact that this is an extremely offensive statement, please demonstrate that broken homes, early exposure to crime, drugs, prostitution, etc, are more common in atheists than theists.

Good luck in that. You're going to have to deal with, you know, those pesky facts and statistics that show, for example, that atheists have a much lower divorce rate than almost every other theist group, with the exception of Mormon temple marriage (and that has suspect stats) and actual preachers. Also you'll have to deal with the fact that the atheist population is drastically under-represented in the prison population.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percen ... _In_Prison