Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
So, who else to tell you something is good or bad, but the rest of humanity? There are no divine books, stone tablets, or fairy princesses in the sky to tell us, so we can only trust our own collective judgment. But this line of reasoning breaks down as soon as you realize that most of the world rejects that atheistic, humanistic reasoning. They are judging what is good or bad on an entirely different standard—one that I cannot personally accept and, in fact, reject very strongly.
Can you really, then, defer judgment about the morality of something like military action based on the opinion of belief systems you reject wholeheartedly? I don’t think I can and I don’t think you could either. Christians and Muslims (making up more than half the world’s population) are maybe both happily seeking armageddon and look at the war leading up to it with glee, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to judge my support of war on their judgment of the morality of that result. I just couldn’t do it.
|
Nor could I, but I think that much of this was covered with my response above. Those parts of these religions which overlap are going to meet my criteria of crossing ideologies... being non-dependent on one worldview, and instead finding consensus
across worldviews.
While there will be exceptions, those actions which would be advocated by Christians, by Muslims, and by Jews would
very likely also be advocated by non-theists.
Along similar lines, the Muslims do NOT believe in the second coming of Christ (the armageddon mention), so arguments in favor of that would be localized and dependent upon the single ideology/worldview. It would not extend beyond it. Further, I'd speculate that even those who hold these ideologies would not actively advocate the end of the world. That approach tends to be heavily restricted to the fundamentalists, and hence is even more consistent with the approach you and I agree upon... That the actions must be deemed as "good" across humans.
I appreciate the concern you've raised, but I don't find it very likely, as even those who are religious will often concede that killing, raping, harming others is bad (despite their teachings to the contrary in the book of fairy tales). In sum, their "belief" in the coming armageddon isn't likely to be argued or advocated by non-fundies. I could be wrong, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
I could give you a humanist argument right now that concludes nuking North Korea is a good idea. Killing up to a quarter of their population could be seen as a positive result on the whole of humanity averaged over the next century. I could make that argument logically and flawlessly. And, people have believed those arguments in the past. Stalin did indeed frame his arguments in atheistic, humanistic terms. His comrades saw the logic and bought into it. I know that’s not something atheists like hearing (let alone saying), but it’s true.
|
I don't think your comparison is valid. Stalin did not engage in those actions as a result of his atheism. His atheism did not inform his decision to kill all of those people. He used logic with which people agreed, but those militant activities of his were not informed by atheism. That would be like saying that my lack of belief in the tooth fairy caused me to rape a child. It's completely unrelated and nonsequitur.
Stalins actions were better described as nationalistic and imperial... dictatorial. This is why people challenge it when the red herring is put forth that he did what he did because he was an atheist. It's a total unfounded lie with no basis in reality and is wrought with logical fallacies... and THAT's why people refute the claim. It's like saying that Lincoln helped free the slaves because he didn't believe in the easter bunny.
