Good behaviour doesn't require superstition.

Thanks for the kind words. Though I don't know how permanent this will be, or if it is, how often I will frequent the site. I guess time will tell. This is a trial run.But, yes, it is good to see you too.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

Nem, I see the USSR beign thrown around a lot as an example of a nonreligious nation. If anything, it resembled a theocracy more than anything else. As is pretty much the case of any/every authoritarian state, the people are expected to worship "the leader" rather than a god. Being religious doesn't mean you have to worship the imaginary being. The soviets pretty much followed the same pattern as any/every theocracy that ever existed: stamp out all competing religions.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Not really.Most of them feel like they have a license to sin.You know the attitude of hey I am saved it don't matter what I do.It don't work that way. As I understand it there is an average of 88.5 abortions performed every minute. Then there are all those morning after pills that are used. Then there are all the natural abortions that take place. But you right it will not be crowded there is room for all even those that don't choose to go there.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Certainly, it is difficult to define what is good. But you may be unconsciously expressing the attitude that I described in the O.P. You might be labouring under the illusion that religious people automatically find it easier to define what is good and bad. But do they?If person A tortures person B to death for working on a Sunday, is it easier for you, as a Christian, to decide what is right and wrong about the situation than it is for me, as an atheist?So, Nemesis, we can either be honest pragmatic relativists, or relativists who believe that we are absolutists.Actually, there doesn't seem to be too much disagreement on this thread at the moment, as neither you nor ICANT are claiming that self-described Christians have higher standards than non-believers.The reason I picked homicide (rather than killing) as an example was to minimize the "what is right and what is wrong" debate, as it's an area where conservative moralists and liberal moralists overlap, unlike, for example, fornication. It's fairly easy to get a virtually unanimous agreement that the less, the better, even though we honest relativists know that an absolute commandment of "thou shalt not kill" doesn't work. Surveys are done, but it's notoriously difficult. The first thing I'd suggest on this thread is that all statistics from countries with totalitarian regimes may as well be ignored, both the Marxists and the theocracies, because opinion cannot be reliably surveyed. Even more complex is the problem that different results can come from different surveys with differences in the questions put.However, enough work has been done to be sure that the Scandinavians have a much higher percentage of non-religious than the U.S., for example, and the U.S. has a higher percentage of non-religious than virtually any "third world" country you care to name.What you can tell from the stats I presented is that what I call the "infidel" countries (say the ten with the highest rate of non-believers) generally come out pretty well on behaviour related surveys (better than average).But I make it clear that the relationship between things like religious beliefs and homicide is complex. For example, religiosity might thrive where there's turbulence and problems, so an apparent high religiosity/high homicide correlation certainly doesn't mean that the church goers are more likely to commit murder than their secular neighbours.The interesting thing is that if we ask the question "what would the world be like without religion" the answer is certainly at very least "no worse" and could well be "better", perhaps considerably better if we take inter-religious conflict into account.Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Eastern Europeans were less Christian than the west when they were under Marxist/Leninist regimes, or that all religions are theistic (Marxism has been described as the last of the world's great religions). Wrong. People don't suddenly stop believing in God because they have an anti-theist regime. Would you? Modern Russia comes in at number 12 on the infidel scale, and is majority theist. Estonia at 50/50 is the only country that was part of the Soviet Union now in the top ten infidels, and the Czech republic is the only other former Eastern block country there.Russia also comes in 12th in the homicide rates, and resembles the messy religious societies more than the Scandinavian infidels. Careful. We can't really tell the religiosity rate of China, North Korea and Vietnam. And look for North and South Korea hereSurprise, eh? Until you consider that there seems to be a relationship between prosperity and non-belief in non-totalitarian societies which raises a chicken and egg question as to which causes which, or is there a factor that might cause both (like education levels, for example).Welcome back, anyway, and I expect we'll be seeing threads on absolutism and relativism soon!

I think that the non-violent nature of the Scandinavian countries is hardly a matter of non-religious vs. religious. I think it's much more a matter of a high degree of cultural and economic homogenuity and unity. They have less cultural and economic conflict, thus less violence.That's my impression - I hardly claim to be an expert on there culture and economies.Moose

It's often difficult to distinguish cause from effect. Some have argued that a feeling of socio-economic security leads to a decline in the need for religion. Others, that high levels of education produce both practical societies in which people feel secure and a decline in religion, thus coincidentally giving those two phenomena (security and irreligiosity) an appearance of being related.There appears to be a connection between both material wealth + security + education with non-theism, both if you look at different groups within one country, or make comparisons between countries.But you always end up with a lot of "which came first, the chicken or the egg" type questions in this area, and if you read research papers, there are widely differing opinions.

In a sense I do agree that they find it easier for the simple fact that they believe in an objective moral value. It, of course, does not mean that their view on what is good is necessarily so, but it would make sense that they would find it. While the relativist certainly has a moral code, it lacks an objective moral value, and so the formulation of such seems at best whimsical.So while they may have a sense of good and bad, it really ultimately comes down to nothing other than a simple opinion. I would first like to clarify that I do not really ascribe to Christianity anymore. Or I should say that while I find Christianity appreciable in many ways, it does not mean that I believe all of it. I am no inerrantist. I'm a crossroads in my life, hence my quote. The author is me. And now you know Nemmy's real name. But anyway, to answer your question directly, you have a very valid point here. Indeed that is one of the cruxes that causes many atheists to become atheists in the first place. They feel that in many ways the "goodness" of God (as a concept) is often seen as immoral in their own mind. They may be thinking, is torturing a man on the Sabbath really what a loving God would want, should God actually exist?The problem is that the atheist has no real answer other than the emotive argument, which is all fine and good to a point, if it weren't for the fact that he also claims to be a rationalist. And I really don't see too many ways to rationally explain things like philanthropy, especially when juxtaposed by the laws of natural selection.The religious man's problem is equally inept in the sense that his only real motivation is that he believes God has said so, and therefore he makes the decision to commit to an horrific act on that basis. He may be faithful, but to what is he being faithful to? A lie that ends up causing more harm than the supposed good that he intended to have? Honesty requires truth, and truth requires absolutism. No, they definitely don't have a higher standard. Their's is simply more defined because they can source an origin for which they claim is absolute. And that, in my own opinion, could be good or bad. It could be good in the sense that they know exactly what their virtues are, and they are uncompromising on it. The bad part is that they are uncompromising on it. What if they are making a tragic mistake, thinking God has sanctioned something when He did not? *nods in affirmation*That makes sense. Agreed. But that may be by virtue of population and diversity alone. The US has roughly 300 million people, the third highest population in the world. It may simply be incidental. Trying to find a correlation may be difficult because I would think that there are a lot of factors at play when trying to give reasons why a country is or is not prone to violence. It may not be as simple as asking if religion or irreligion is the cause. I therefore was challenging the resolution, the accuracy of it, that is. I could also provide statistics showing that non-religious nations also predominantly have the highest suicide rates. Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Japan, etc have very high rates of suicide. All of those countries are known for their mostly secular influence. Should that automatically mean that they kill themselves because they don't have God in their lives? Certainly not, I should think, for the simple fact that other factors are at play. I'm not saying that it should bear no reflection, or that it isn't something to consider, I'm just saying that it might be unwise to place all of our eggs in one basket. Within the enormous blanket of religion, there is a clear difference between religions, and even denominations of religions. For instance, what resemblance in attitude is there between Quakers and the Westboro Baptists? They both believe in God. They both believe that the bible is the inspired Word of God. But there is a marked difference between the two factions.There also is enormous difference between seculars. There are many atheists out there who are atheists on the merits of challenging the realism of religion. They don't believe it, but clearly they respect the fact that some people do. There are others that are virulently hostile about it. Stalinists and Westboro Baptists seem to share more in common than Stalinists and atheists or Quakers and staunch atheists. The most horrific acts have been carried out in the name of God, and the most benevolent acts have been carried out in the name of God. The most horrific acts have been carried out for the sole reason of ridding the world of the notion of God, and the most benevolent acts have been carried out in the notion of showing that God was not necessary. Many were murdered under those pretenses in Russia. People often forget that more people were murdered in Russia's purging than were murdered in the Nazi concentration camps. What is this "infidel scale"? So what then is the reason for the killing? Are Russians killing each other in the name of God, or is it for personal reasons? I would think a correlation exists in how people act within a society. Americans love strife, and enmity, and violence. Somehow this has become appealing. Ethics are now bourgeois and boring. Drama is where the excitement is! You look at the utter horse shit that the Jerry Springer show puts out, and somehow people are mystified as to why the civilization is collapsing. Well, the violence seems to be done upon the religious and spiritual folk. Why with the persecution of peaceful groups like the Falon Gong, China's repressive ways do make it hard to tell how many religious folk exist in the country. I think there are many factors. Societies are complex, very complex. I deal with people from all over the world all day long. And I don't know why people do what they do. The Russians, Germans and the Ukraines seem to be very put off and generally unhelpful, where as the Asians seem to be very kind and helpful in my line of work. But, even that is subject to change. I'm speaking in generalities, of course.Suffice it to say that it first starts in the DNA and then the upbringing. Its a question of which attitude a society adopts, and which they decide to look down upon. I can't untie the gordian knot on this one. Thanks for the welcome back, but I could still use a break from a lengthy discussion about absolutism and relativism.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

Lemme read between the lines here: Anything negative takes after religion, and everything good takes after secularism. Even when a secular system is wrong, its really just evidence that it is actually more akin to a theocracy.Color me unconvinced and unimpressed by that rationale.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

The universal fact about theocracies is not religion, but rather forcing people to adhere to a belief. The specific belief is irrelevant. It's not a matter of religion vs secularism, it's a matter of religious freedom vs totalitarianism. This is just as valid for Christian theocracies as it is for the USSR.

It is relevant since you need Theo in order to have a theocracy. Theocracies and totalitarianism may have similarities in that thay are both oppressive, but Taz was basically saying that the Soviet Union's purging of God is the same as having a God -- a concept so asinine that it needed a retort.It is like saying that Stalin and Hitler were the same by virtue that they were both dictators. While that much is certainly uncontested, nothing else about them was the same. They are were at the complete and total ends of the spectrum - Stalin to the Left, and Hitler to the Right.He said this in response to this quote of me:You look in the 80's and you see the Soviet Union, as godless as it gets, juxtaposed by Ireland, a place many people equate with having a predominant religiosity. Was the Soviet Union more apt to murder because of their godless ways? Is there some sort of definitive correlation? The problem is that there is not a simple answer. Because first of all, believing in God doesn't somehow make one's will in alignment with the will of God in the first place. It would be as meaningless as telling someone that I'm an Asian woman when really I'm an African man. Does my saying so make me an Asian woman? Does my saying so make me more moral? Obviously not. - Msg 14The single point that I was trying to make is that I doubt that there is any irrefutable correlation between (non)religious countries being more prone to violence.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

A claim to objectivity does not mean objectivity. You find it difficult to explain philanthropy in relation to natural selection? Think of the "selfish" gene concept, then think of a philanthropical organism doing things which might aid the future survival of other organisms which have virtually the same genome (humans differ by a fraction of 1% of genes).It's a common mistake to think that evolutionary theory would mean that social animals like ourselves would be selfish as individuals. Rather, it's a balance, and "selfish" would be a bad word if and when "unselfish" would be advantageous to the perpetuation of the human genome, which it usually is. People who are seen as completely self-centred are frowned on in all cultures, and altruism is universally respected.In relation to the topic, interestingly, the countries with the highest levels of non-theism are good at looking after their poor.The countries with the lowest levels of non-theism are all third world, and specialise in poverty. No, honesty may require truth, but truth just requires reality. And in reality, we're all moral relativists. Suicides are often higher in the more secular societies, but suicide is not immoral behaviour to us infidels, and it may be because of the lack of taboo. So, when I said that the infidel countries come out well in behaviour related surveys I was considering killing other people as being bad behaviour, not killing oneself!For most of the rest of your post, look again at the O.P.You may not agree, but I think that a lot of religious people have the impression that if their religion dies out, and the people of their country lapse into apostasy, that it will be a terrible thing.I'm just pointing out that the countries the furthest down the road to leaving their traditional religions behind are perfectly fine (Russia isn't one of them!). If the U.S. followed their route and became typical of the top ten, it would have a slightly higher life expectancy, a much lower percentage of its population in prison, a lower murder rate, better sex education, less abortions, less sexually transmitted diseases, less teenage pregnancies, etc. (And your suicide rate would be about the same, as it's already quite high!).So, what's there to worry about? And you can stay in bed on Sunday mornings, or do something enjoyable.

I saw this question in a follow-up post and decided to weigh in.A person who tortures someone to death for working on a Sunday has already reached the wrong conclusion, no matter how easy it was to make that decision.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That was in an answer to Nemesis Juggernaut, and he knows what I'm talking about. Moses orders someone to be stoned to death for collecting firewood on a Sunday. It's just one of many things in the Bible that can be used to illustrate to Christians that their religion doesn't give them simple moral absolutes, because few of them actually agree with Moses on that one, when they think about it, and they can hardly use his own commandment about not killing to override it. So, like the rest of us, they have to draw their moral conclusions on the issue from some other source.

Did you not read what I said? I said theocracy, not religion. The soviets resembled just about every theocratic political body that have ever existed. Forcefully stamp out all opposition. The only difference between the soviets and other theocracies in the past was that they had a deified leader instead of deified imaginary being(s).

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Yes. In the USSR c1940 the theo was Stalin
In Iran it is Allah
In Nazi Germany it was Hitler
In ancient Egypt it was the Pharoah

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969