Why do Atheists Bother?

[nl]

Christians now outnumber communists in China.

Christianity finds local forms of expression in local cultures. In China, Christ's church is gaining adherents.

Link: Christians Now Outnumber Communists in China - Breitbart

Though the Chinese Communist Party is the largest explicitly atheist organization in the world, with 85 million official members, it is now overshadowed by an estimated 100 million Christians in China. It is no wonder Beijing is nervous and authorities are cracking down on Christian groups.


Christianity is growing so fast in China that some predict that it will be the most Christian nation in the world in only another 15 years. By far, the greatest growth is coming outside the official state-sanctioned churches, which are rightly considered subservient to the Communist Party. Numbers are increasing, rather, in unofficial Protestant “house churches” and in the underground Catholic church.


“By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon,” said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University and author of Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule.


Although at least on paper the People’s Republic of China recognizes freedom of religion since 1978, party members are explicitly forbidden to believe in any religion.

 

[Percepi]

Though the Chinese Communist Party is the largest explicitly atheist organization in the world

Well, the Nazi's were a Christian organization if you want to play this asinine game.

 

[Percepi]

in the same way you are responsible for what you believe...because you choose to believe it.....according to you morality is a concept that occurs naturally and I said the opposite must also be true...so immorality is also a concept that occur naturally...one cannot be blamed for the result of naturally occurring concepts.....murder will be the result of a naturally occurring concept of immorality... that would be like blaming the weatherman for a storm

You keep trying to separate us from the matter that makes us up. Technically speaking, you can look the world as one insanely large domino effect, but it doesn't change who we are. Even if everything is the result of chemical reactions, which they are, we still hold people accountable for those actions because that's precisely what makes those people... them! I am chemicals. You keep trying to divide me and my chemical makeup.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Well, the Nazi's were a Christian organization if you want to play this asinine game.

The Nazi regime were "New Age" occultists. Their symbols, rituals, and superstitions give them away. Whether or not Hitler really believed in that stuff or just used it to advance his own purposes, that we may never know. However a major architect in the Nazi occult empire was Heinrich Himmler, and I think from the research I have done on him that he certainly believed in that stuff to the max.

As for China, it is true only some of them are hardcore atheists (mostly the "old guard" communists), especially during the Mao era. Though from my studies on contemporary China, after Mao they seem to have spliced communist-atheism with Confucianism, or as they prefer to call it, Communism with Chinese characteristics.

 

[nl]

Well, the Nazi's were a Christian organization if you want to play this asinine game.

The Nazi regime were "New Age" occultists. Their symbols, rituals, and superstitions give them away. Whether or not Hitler really believed in that stuff or just used it to advance his own purposes, that we may never know. However a major architect in the Nazi occult empire was Heinrich Himmler, and I think from the research I have done on him that he certainly believed in that stuff to the max.

The grim reality is that the Nazi's applied an extension of Darwinian theory and sought to advance a supposedly superior race (German race) while also seeking to exterminate a supposedly inferior race (Jewish race). A principle of selection was applied un-naturally and it led to atrocities on a massive scale.

 

[Percepi]

The grim reality is that the Nazi's applied an extension of Darwinian theory

Darwinian theory doesn't advocate certain behaviors. It is merely an observation of reality. That's like denying the science of combustion because you don't like how it's used for firearms.

Not only that, but there's literally zero advantage to annihilating other humans to preserve the continuation of the human species. Those who support eugenics are essentially adults who failed science, yet try to apply their misconceptions to reality.

You keep trying to act like atheism and evolution leads to atrocities as if Christianity has never been bastardized.

(Notice how almost every single person you have ever talked to in your entire life who accepts evolution views eugenics as absurd. This should be a hint that evolutionary theory doesn't necessarily lead to eugenics in the same way Christianity doesn't necessarily lead to holy wars.)

The Nazi regime were "New Age" occultists.

Okay, and China's atheist communist party are totalitarian communists.

You keep trying to point fingers at how evil atheists are, even though atheism isn't the cause of these issues but merely a person's philosophy being forced on others. Hitler bastardized Christianity, and you're going to see people bastardize atheism. Guess what, people take things that don't have any inherent evil and make them into something that's evil.

I am an atheist libertarian and a humanist. So bringing up totalitarian communists who are atheist literally has zero impact on me. It's a crooked tactic and it's the equivalent of someone bringing up Hitler as a Christ worshiper to attack your views. (I brought up Nazis to reflect NL's absurd behavior - of course Nazism doesn't define Christianity. Chinese communists don't define atheism.)

This is just mud slinging and it's pathetic.

 

[Human]

A thought experiment I came up with: Suppose a Dr. Frankenstein (yes, the great-great-grandson) came up with an operation that removed the suffering receptors in the brain (technically, it burned them out with electrical current). Would you have the operation? Would you encourage others to have it?

Dr F's motto: "Together, we can build a world without suffering."

It always seems to me the Christian looks at the end compartmentalized from the means. No, I wouldn't have the operation. In suffering comes empathy, which leads to a desire to help others who suffer. Without the ability to suffer and empathize with suffering, there'd be no reason to live. Hunger is a form of suffering. Without hunger, a man will rarely if ever eat. We'd all die.

 

[newbirth]

You keep trying to separate us from the matter that makes us up. Technically speaking, you can look the world as one insanely large domino effect, but it doesn't change who we are. Even if everything is the result of chemical reactions, which they are, we still hold people accountable for those actions because that's precisely what makes those people... them! I am chemicals. You keep trying to divide me and my chemical makeup.

how so? on what basis do you hold someone accountable for an action resulting from a naturally occurring concept?...or his chemical make up...he has no control over those things...people are held accountable because they are deemed responsible ...

 

[Percepi]

how so? on what basis do you hold someone accountable for an action resulting from a naturally occurring concept?...or his chemical make up...he has no control over those things...people are held accountable because they are deemed responsible ...

You're separating the concept of us from the material that makes up us.

You're essentially arguing: "How can we be held accountable if chemicals make us do things?"
My response is: "We are chemicals."

You're also wondering why we tend to be lenient with people naturally effected by certain defects (I'm assuming mental ones) yet we hold people accountable for chemical actions. Well, when you realize we are chemicals, we hold those chemicals that make us up accountable. These chemicals can make up a person who knows better (via chemicals) or doesn't know better due to birth defects (via chemicals).

The above probably makes no sense to you, so to sum it up: Everything is chemicals including us, so we don't excuse people just because what they did is the result of chemical processes. This doesn't mean we can't set standards for mental problems or other natural phenomena, it just means we must evaluate what standards we use.

 

[Human]

how so? on what basis do you hold someone accountable for an action resulting from a naturally occurring concept?...or his chemical make up...he has no control over those things...people are held accountable because they are deemed responsible ...

I think the terminology is confusing you, and I think you're assuming that because Percepi and I accept that all things are chemicals, that such a view somehow requires us to place absolutely no value on concepts like morality or law. That's not the case. If there wasn't a case for morality from our views, we wouldn't bother making one -- we wouldn't be moral men.

Just because I am made up of chemicals (which every piece of matter in the entire universe is, including you and everything around you) doesn't mean I think we should just murder and rape and say ''Oh well, we're chemicals''. That's such a ridiculous notion. Why would I even want to kill, rape and pillage? What does it benefit me? What does it benefit anyone else?

You'll probably reply something like ''Well, why does it even matter if we're just chemicals''. I can think of a thousand reasons why it matters, but I suppose, given the tone of your replies thus far, that is a question you'll just have to answer for yourself. You're made up entirely of chemicals, too, just like Pecepi and I. Why don't you go around raping, killing and pillaging?

 

[newbirth]

You're separating the concept of us from the material that makes up us.

You're essentially arguing: "How can we be held accountable if chemicals make us do things?"
My response is: "We are chemicals."

You're also wondering why we tend to be lenient with people naturally effected by certain defects (I'm assuming mental ones) yet we hold people accountable for chemical actions. Well, when you realize we are chemicals, we hold those chemicals that make us up accountable. These chemicals can make up a person who knows better (via chemicals) or doesn't know better due to birth defects (via chemicals).

The above probably makes no sense to you, so to sum it up: Everything is chemicals including us, so we don't excuse people just because what they did is the result of chemical processes. This doesn't mean we can't set standards for mental problems or other natural phenomena, it just means we must evaluate what standards we use.

thus creating your own moral values by which you set standards for man’s behaviour..it makes no sense because you makes no sense...Christians believe God is the original author of those values...you are contending the author is chemical...if this is so you can set whatever standard you like.... you are still under the control of chemical making the chemical responsible for a person's action...What of a person who knows better but does not do better....is it by choice or chemicals

 

[Human]

thus creating your own moral values by which you set standards for man’s behaviour..it makes no sense because you makes no sense...Christians believe God is the original author of those values...you are contending the author is chemical...if this is so you can set whatever standard you like.... you are still under the control of chemical making the chemical responsible for a person's action...What of a person who knows better but does not do better....is it by choice or chemicals

Newbirth:

1. Is your body made entirely of chemicals? Yes, it is.
2. Do you have morals and ethics? Yes you do.

Now I'll ask myself the same questions:

1. Human, is your body made entirely of chemicals? Why yes, it is.
2. Do you have morals and ethics? Why, yes, I do!

We are both made of chemicals, that's a fact. We both have morals and ethics. The chemicals in my body are what I am made of. They are what you are made of, too. They are you, and you are them. You are chemicals, I am chemicals.

I'm also a man; a human; a mechanism for the exchange of electrons; a guitarist; a singer; a writer; a student; a science lover; a non-Christian; a twentysomething; a brother; a cousin; a son; a UK national; a food enthusiast; a socialist anarchist with a few authoritarianisms; an intellectualist; a heterosexual; a sapiosexual; an avid reader; a pacifist; a relative thinker; a painter; a handy-man and an environmentalist.

I'm lots of things other than ''just chemicals'', but on a basic level -- I'm chemicals!

 

[newbirth]

Newbirth:

1. Is your body made entirely of chemicals? Yes, it is.
2. Do you have morals and ethics? Yes you do.

Now I'll ask myself the same questions:

1. Human, is your body made entirely of chemicals? Why yes, it is.
2. Do you have morals and ethics? Why, yes, I do!

We are both made of chemicals, that's a fact. We both have morals and ethics. The chemicals in my body are what I am made of. They are what you are made of, too. They are you, and you are them. You are chemicals, I am chemicals.

I'm also a man; a human; a mechanism for the exchange of electrons; a guitarist; a singer; a writer; a student; a science lover; a non-Christian; a twentysomething; a brother; a cousin; a son; a UK national; a food enthusiast; a socialist anarchist with a few authoritarianisms; an intellectualist; a heterosexual; a sapiosexual; an avid reader; a pacifist; a relative thinker; a painter; a handy-man and an environmentalist.

I'm lots of things other than ''just chemicals'', but on a basic level -- I'm chemicals!

I am not sure if you and Percipi share the same views so it is a bit difficult for me to respond to you ...since you are responding to a post which is a response to him...he believes morality is a concept that occurs naturally...as a result of chemical reaction...I contend that cannot be so ...else man cannot be held responsible or his actions.....not only that but every person will have their own set of morals.....I am also lots of things other than ''just chemicals'' I am a living soul, filled with God's spirit....and that cannot be attributed to any known chemicals...

 

[Human]

I am not sure if you and Percipi share the same views so it is a bit difficult for me to respond to you ...since you are responding to a post which is a response to him...he believes morality is a concept that occurs naturally...as a result of chemical reaction...I contend that cannot be so ...else man cannot be held responsible or his actions.....not only that but every person will have their own set of morals.....I am also lots of things other than ''just chemicals'' I am a living soul, filled with God's spirit....and that cannot be attributed to any known chemicals...

You are oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulphur, chlorine, magnesium, crhomium, cobalt, coppor, flourine, iodine, manganese, iron, molybdenum, selenium, solicon, tin, vanadium, zinc and numerous compounds of those chemicals; so am I and so is Percepi.

Chemicals are what makes us, and so in that respect, of COURSE morality is a result of chemicals. Everything in the universe that is matter or is expunged from matter is a result of chemicals in that chemicals are what everything is made of physically. The very brain that thinks and believes and hopes and moralizes is made up of chemicals.

That is a fact, indesputably. My point was, though, that just because chemicals are what everything is made of (and thus the very physical nature of all things that exist), does not mean that Percepi and I can have no morals, just that we don't believe our application of morals to come from anywhere else except our own heads.

Whether you like to think it or not, everybody does live by their own morals, even you. You choose to take upon the morals found in the bible; the thoughts in your head right now, and always, regarding God and regarding morality, are essentially electrical and chemical signals in your brain. That doesn't mean that they have no value to you, or to us. This doesn't mean that morality has no value; we assign value to it, we all do that.

Every person assigns worth to their values; that's why they are called values!

We aren't saying morality doesn't 'exist', it just isn't objectively or materially existent. There's no calcium, phosphorus, carbon nitrogen or oxygen in morality!! lol it's a mental concept. That's what we mean. Mental concepts are a result of chemical and electrical signals in the brain (which is made of chemicals).

 

[newbirth]

It always seems to me the Christian looks at the end compartmentalized from the means. No, I wouldn't have the operation. In suffering comes empathy, which leads to a desire to help others who suffer. Without the ability to suffer and empathize with suffering, there'd be no reason to live. Hunger is a form of suffering. Without hunger, a man will rarely if ever eat. We'd all die.

why do you say without hunger a man will rarely eat....do you only eat when you are hungry? we eat because our body needs nutrients ...hunger is a sign our body is low on fuel....just as a man will not try to fill a gas tank that is already full...or wait till his tank is empty to refill...its almost the same with food...we will not all die...since we will not all die ...will you support a move to end suffering on the planet...???

 

[Cycel]

BTW, I also have difficulty with Psalm 137:9 but I don't see and understand like God does.

The point is, the author of that Psalm wished revenge and in his belief that God thought like him stated that those dashed the bodies of Babylonian infants against the rocks would win God's blessing. These are the words of men, not God.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Darwinian theory doesn't advocate certain behaviors. It is merely an observation of reality. That's like denying the science of combustion because you don't like how it's used for firearms.

Not only that, but there's literally zero advantage to annihilating other humans to preserve the continuation of the human species. Those who support eugenics are essentially adults who failed science, yet try to apply their misconceptions to reality.

You keep trying to act like atheism and evolution leads to atrocities as if Christianity has never been bastardized.

(Notice how almost every single person you have ever talked to in your entire life who accepts evolution views eugenics as absurd. This should be a hint that evolutionary theory doesn't necessarily lead to eugenics in the same way Christianity doesn't necessarily lead to holy wars.)



Okay, and China's atheist communist party are totalitarian communists.

You keep trying to point fingers at how evil atheists are, even though atheism isn't the cause of these issues but merely a person's philosophy being forced on others. Hitler bastardized Christianity, and you're going to see people bastardize atheism. Guess what, people take things that don't have any inherent evil and make them into something that's evil.

I am an atheist libertarian and a humanist. So bringing up totalitarian communists who are atheist literally has zero impact on me. It's a crooked tactic and it's the equivalent of someone bringing up Hitler as a Christ worshiper to attack your views. (I brought up Nazis to reflect NL's absurd behavior - of course Nazism doesn't define Christianity. Chinese communists don't define atheism.)

This is just mud slinging and it's pathetic.

Lol totalitarian communists are atheists, its one of the central pillars of communism. I ain't saying you're a communist or all atheists are communists, but for the China in Mao era, lots of the hardline communists were atheists, some still are. Of course atheism is going to be bastardized by communism, strict Marxism dictates to be atheistic. It's not an unfair equivalency because that's exactly what the early Chinese Communist leaders were attempting.

Lol I know why you brought up nazism, I have done the same before when I was an atheist. It is even a common atheistic argument. Yet it only shows that atheists are unable to comprehend actual history. You can't compare Nazis to Christianity because Nazism itself is its own religion. The Nazis thought that they came from Atlantis and their endgame was to establish a 1,000 year reich of racially pure supermen (comically of course of a race that in truth never even existed from a continent that also almost certainly never existed.)

A fair question on Christianity and equivalency to Empires be to examine our friends across the pond in Britain or any of the Catholic Monarchies of old or still in existence, or even the Vatican itself.

 

[Human]

Lol totalitarian communists are atheists, its one of the central pillars of communism. I ain't saying you're a communist or all atheists are communists, but for the China in Mao era, lots of the hardline communists were atheists, some still are. Of course atheism is going to be bastardized by communism, strict Marxism dictates to be atheistic. It's not an unfair equivalency because that's exactly what the early Chinese Communist leaders were attempting.

Lol I know why you brought up nazism, I have done the same before when I was an atheist. It is even a common atheistic argument. Yet it only shows that atheists are unable to comprehend actual history. You can't compare Nazis to Christianity because Nazism itself is its own religion. The Nazis thought that they came from Atlantis and their endgame was to establish a 1,000 year reich of racially pure supermen (comically of course of a race that in truth never even existed from a continent that also almost certainly never existed.)

A fair question on Christianity and equivalency to Empires be to examine our friends across the pond in Britain or any of the Catholic Monarchies of old or still in existence, or even the Vatican itself.

Double standards. It's okay for you to morally equate atheism with tyrannical, genocidal totalitarianism (the Chinese gov't/Stalinist Russian governments were athiests) and unfair for someone to equate far-right anti-Semitic Nationalism (Hitler was an exaggerater of Lutheran anti-Semitism) with Christianity, then you infer Marxism (different in many, many ways to Stalinism or Leninism or Chinese totalitarianism) is 'bad' and atheist, therefore atheism is bad.

Come on, man.

 

[newbirth]

You are oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulphur, chlorine, magnesium, crhomium, cobalt, coppor, flourine, iodine, manganese, iron, molybdenum, selenium, solicon, tin, vanadium, zinc and numerous compounds of those chemicals; so am I and so is Percepi.

Chemicals are what makes us, and so in that respect, of COURSE morality is a result of chemicals. Everything in the universe that is matter or is expunged from matter is a result of chemicals in that chemicals are what everything is made of physically. The very brain that thinks and believes and hopes and moralizes is made up of chemicals.

That is a fact, indesputably. My point was, though, that just because chemicals are what everything is made of (and thus the very physical nature of all things that exist), does not mean that Percepi and I can have no morals, just that we don't believe our application of morals to come from anywhere else except our own heads.

then you are the creator of your own morals...and thus a man who creates his own morals which is to kill human without reason and assign the value of good to it...how is he different from one who creates his own morals to kill mosquitoes without reason and assign a value of good to it..???
did you in your own head come up with ...killing another human is wrong?...or stealing is wrong....or were you taught them as morals???

Whether you like to think it or not, everybody does live by their own morals, even you. You choose to take upon the morals found in the bible; the thoughts in your head right now, and always, regarding God and regarding morality, are essentially electrical and chemical signals in your brain. That doesn't mean that they have no value to you, or to us. This doesn't mean that morality has no value; we assign value to it, we all do that.

that is what you want to believe ...but we all follow values that we met already established...your thinking is not new....words may have changed but the idea is the same...

Every person assigns worth to their values; that's why they are called values!

again that may be so in some cases but most values we know already had their worth assigned...

We aren't saying morality doesn't 'exist', it just isn't objectively or materially existent. There's no calcium, phosphorus, carbon nitrogen or oxygen in morality!! lol it's a mental concept. That's what we mean. Mental concepts are a result of chemical and electrical signals in the brain (which is made of chemicals).

Did I say you said that???

 

[Human]

then you are the creator of your own morals...and thus a man who creates his own morals which is to kill human without reason and assign the value of good to it...how is he different from one who creates his own morals to kill mosquitoes without reason and assign a value of good to it..???
did you in your own head come up with ...killing another human is wrong?...or stealing is wrong....or were you taught them as morals???

Well, because humans and mosquitos (not that I like to kill anything) are two different things. If you honestly can't work out why killing someone is wrong without the bible, then maybe you need it to keep you in check mate.


t

hat is what you want to believe ...but we all follow values that we met already established...your thinking is not new....words may have changed but the idea is the same...

I don't follow morals because someone tells me to, I don't consider something right and wrong because somebody has told me it is. That's called deontology, and it doesn't require thought, just obedience, like a soldier following orders, willing to do whatever his master tells him, nomatter how bloody, violent or horrible it is. No, I decide my morals by using my head.

again that may be so in some cases but most values we know already had their worth assigned...

There's no objective morality. What you see as morals having unchanging objective worth is really you accepting what other people tell you is 'right' or 'wrong' because it is considered normative or traditional or whatever, but I don't give my moral values worth based on what worth others have given them. At one point it was traditional to stone your wife to death if she was unfaithful, now it's repulsive. There's an example of something that used to have moral value, no longer having moral value.