/atheism/ - Atheism

Daily reminder that this is a statuefag shill thread. Sage and move on.

>If good, evil, and all of what we consider to be "morality" is subjective and a man made concept then there is no way that you can make an argument against religion by saying it is evil.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Good and evil are subjective, that doesn't mean that the subjective concepts of good and evil don't exist.

Religion is evil. The people who practice those religions wouldn't call it evil.

>The majority of people who have made the most modern contributions to science, medicine, and philosophy have been Christians

Was that by design because in the modern era that's not true at all.

>Muslims

The Islamic Golden Age is a myth.

>Hindus

>Jews

Well which religion should I convert to, Rabbi?

>unlike modern day Atheism that acts as if science is the end all be all for the universe and the only way to be an intellectual is to limit yourself to one branch of thinking

>Implying science is only one branch

>If you are going to play that game then I will have to point out that the hundreds of millions of people who had died under communist rule, part of which aimed to achieve a society with out religion.

You do realize that there is a difference between atheism and irreligion, yes?

>The church also donates billions to charity organizations

Your point? So did Bill Gates, and he was only one man.

and build homes for impoverished people around the world.

So does Médecins Sans Frontières.

>So from an objective standpoint religion is not only good

>Objective

>Good

Troll harder, statuefag.

>but better than Atheism.

It doesn't matter even if it was, atheism is the sanest position. There is nothing inherent in religion that leads to innovation.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. "

I will only respond if you can correctly respond to this question.

"What good can only be done in the name of religion?"

>If good, evil, and all of what we consider to be "morality" is subjective and a man made concept then there is no way that you can make an argument against religion by saying it is evil.

If that is the case then you can also not argue that religion is a force for good in the world.

>The church also donates billions to charity organizations and build homes for impoverished people around the world.

According to their reports the two biggest churches(lutheran, catholic, both are considered to be among the richest churches in the world) of my country, that account for the vast majority of church members, only donate about 2% of their income to charitable projects yearly which they generate with billions of church taxes and other sources like being the major shareholders of publishers or even being large scale lessors of major housing complexes . The so-called church-sponsored social establishments(like hospitals and kindergartens) are only paid with 5% church money on average but the churches get to call the shots for example special employment rights when they can fire openly homosexuals or newly-wed divorcees.

Just recently their was a major scandal that involved a bishop who illegally funneled money in order to build a multi-million dollar residence. The readiness of people to give money to church-affiliated charities took a nose dive and the genuine philanthropists that go from door step to door step suffered from this.

The people started to wonder why should we give money to an institution that's effectively a multi-billion dollar megacorp whose members seem to recklessly spend money and enjoy a decadent lifestyle while preaching an ascetic one(keep in mind that bishop already had millions at his disposal before using money not inteded for his preferences).

So the pope whose PR machine was trying to establish an image of modesty at that time exiled this bishop and demoted him because of the heat from the public.

The legacy of this scandal? The number of church leavers sky rocketed again(just after the major child abuse cover-up scandal two years ago) and people donate less to church-affiliated charities.

Now, some dioceses proclaimed that they will disclose their financial status but the first reports can't be taken seriously because they already try to decrease their wealth on paper, for example declaring the value of inner city real estate to be merely worth a few Euros.

The last name of this bishop has become a verb in youth youth slang for blowing money and fortune.

So this is why no one takes you seriously when you talk about the churches being charitable.

>If good, evil, and all of what we consider to be "morality" is subjective and a man made concept then there is no way that you can make an argument against religion by saying it is evil.

No, because the consequences of morality are not subjective. Moral programs may only be relevant to humans, but they tend to have real life consequences

>>8310

>>The church also donates billions to charity organizations

>Your point? So did Bill Gates, and he was only one man.

Funny how you atheists like to flaunt around your low crime rate statistics but suddenly go quiet when this is brought up.

>If good, evil, and all of what we consider to be "morality" is subjective and a man made concept then there is no way that you can make an argument against religion by saying it is evil.

Very few of us here would honestly say it's evil but would say there's more reasonable alternatives.

>The majority of people who have made the most modern contributions to science, medicine, and philosophy have been Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews.

Really? Pic related. No atheist I know of acts like science is the end-all be-all. A lot of them credit philosophy which is the secular cousin of religion and to me, one in the same.

>If you are going to play that game then I will have to point out that the hundreds of millions of people who had died under communist rule, part of which aimed to achieve a society with out religion.

Your point seems to be that whatever belief causes more people to die, that proves your god. What belief has killed more people is also arguable. I'm of the belief that sometimes killing isn't necessarily bad, sometimes you have to defend the good. Millions have killed in the name of gods. You're going to play ignorant on that, I'm sure.

>The church also donates billions to charity organizations and build homes for impoverished people around the world.

Plenty of athiests also donate. You're also assuming donating to these people helps them when we can teach them how to fish, so to speak. Giving people handouts is not always the answer.

You're claiming atheists limit themselves ideologically when it's just the opposite. You're stuck to believing in an old text while atheists here can examine the situation in a non-teleological manner, meaning we don't have to conform our opinion to a belief or conclusion, rather the opinion can come about by whatever method works for the person or people.

>So from an objective standpoint religion is not only good, but better than Atheism. And from a subjective standpoint you cannot prove whether religion is or is not bad.

No, this is not objective and I just told you why. You also can't "prove" anything when saying a moral ideology is good or bad until you can define good or bad.

You seem to stagger around whether religion is good or bad instead of the trial at hand, whether gods exist, and that is a defining characteristic of atheist/agnostic belief.

>>8343

>shows post that was debunked

>goes off on a completely different tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with the previous point

Certified statuelogic right there

>>8343

see

>>8339

your arguments are so weak that I won't even bother discussing them, comparing communism deaths to being an atheist, saying that religion made contribution to science and not actually people, and using objective when talking about your own opinions

get a grip and fuck off

>>8343

Wow, way to not address my point.

We're not suggesting religion is evil. Just that it's (with nearly 100% certainty) incorrect.

>>8308

>If good, evil, and all of what we consider to be "morality" is subjective and a man made concept then there is no way that you can make an argument against religion by saying it is evil.

Why? I find morality much more meaningful if it is a man made concept that we agree to behave to rather than some imposed on us by a "higher power"

>The majority of people who have made the most modern contributions to science, medicine, and philosophy have been Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews

The vast majority of people alive of Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Jews. Despite that a majority of scientist are now atheistic or agnostic, and this distinction tends to grow as they get more educated

>Atheism that acts as if science is the end all be all for the universe and the only way to be an intellectual is to limit yourself to one branch of thinking (which in itself is intellectually inferior thinking).

The "New Atheist" get accused of scientism a lot, and I'll agree there are more ways to the truth. There are mathematical or logical truths. There are historical truths, witch technically are empirical but often require lots of deduction. There is philosophy as well. But you are mistaken if you think religion is an equally valid path to the truth. One way I can tell is that you never see scientist gather every sunday and sing about how they have faith in neutrinos, mathematicians don't pray so they understand the mystery of topological spaces.

>If you are going to play that game then I will have to point out that the hundreds of millions of people who had died under communist rule, part of which aimed to achieve a society with out religion.

Atheism or irreligion in general doesn't lead to communism, you can be an atheist and by an Randian far right libertarian, or a centrist secular humanist.

>The church also donates billions to charity organizations and build homes for impoverished people around the world.

This isn't exclusive to the Church and I don't see why we can't just take the charity and leave all the supernatural claims/

>So from an objective standpoint religion is not only good, but better than Atheism. And from a subjective standpoint you cannot prove whether religion is or is not bad.

Most of the prosperous countries in the world have large amounts of atheist/irreligious, and those who are religious tend to be very moderate about it.

>>8424

>Why? I find morality much more meaningful if it is a man made concept that we agree to behave to rather than some imposed on us by a "higher power"

I like that.

>atheistic or agnostic

>Atheists and atheist

Why did you feel that it was necessary to state that twice?

>There are mathematical or logical truths.

What makes you think that these do not follow the scientific method. Almost all mathematicians consider themselves scientists. And why maths fields are considered science.

>There is philosophy as well.

What makes you think that religion is any different from philosophy?

>Atheism or irreligion in general doesn't lead to communism, you can be an atheist and by an Randian far right libertarian, or a centrist secular humanist.

This is true, atheism doesn't foster a political worldview unlike religion does.

>This isn't exclusive to the Church and I don't see why we can't just take the charity and leave all the supernatural claims/

What was that one church that donated millions to charity but would only supply it if you were a Christian?

>>8426

>What make you think philosophy is different from religion?

Religion hinges on undefined supernatural premises, and anything goes because someone you trust claims to speak for the creator/divine ones. It entirely relies on the appeal to authority fallacy, even to interpret your own 'spiritual experiences' unless you are one of the lucky few who started an entirely new religion and marketed it well enough to start your own devout cult.

Philosophy laborously in the most verbose way possible tries to define every term used in as irrefutable (or at least plausible) way possible, and then follows laws of logic to try and find universal truths. It's similar to the scientific method because good philosophical arguments take nothing for granted, and define every assumption. Religion can borrow conclusions from philosophy, but without philosophy religion is guys in funny-looking robes telling you what to do.