Atheism Examined

Which is why its hard to mix them.Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it is to be just.How would a just god react to the rejection of forgiveness?

This is confusing. I was under the impression that no one of the religious persuasion was able to show that their morality was either absolute or superior to society's morality.From what I can see, society is the ONLY metric by which good and bad are evaluated.Example: The Inquisition was considered good in the society where it was used. It obviously was squared up nicely with the religious texts by the priests of the time (at least the majority). Yet we consider it bad from our lofty position in this society.Native American tribes considered torturing captives completely moral and even involved their children in the ceremony. Again our moral outrage of this practice is easy to come by 2 centuries later.Killing and eating your enemy was practiced by tribes in New Guinea until fairly recently. However they loved their children and families the same as we do. Their society seemed to be viable until judged by the Western Society and the practice outlawed.Are athiests necessarily "less moral" than thiests? Within the bounds set by that particular society...no. Withing the bounds set by a particular religion....likely yes.

Yes. You are. Any way He wants.An all-powerful God is under no obligation to be an a**hole. He's under no obligation to kill children. He's under no obligation to punish anybody.He decides what justice is. He can freely give forgiveness if He wants to. He can ignore rejection if He wants to.Your version of god doesn't want to.Don't you see how that kind of god isn't very convincing to an atheist?Edited by Ringo, : Spellinge.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Be assured, I am extremely thankful for it everyday. I am not naive to the acts of which we are capable of on others. I do not think so. I think we would have one less path in which to develop our structure. But I do not think it would decrease anything, or leave us without anything if we had simply used another path to get here. On a simple over-looking glance, I do not see anything in our current moral social structure that is only available through religion. However, it would be an interesting discussion on another thread perhaps... I agree. I don't really see how either of our positions on this opinion could actually be proven. I agree with you here. Without going to society and saying "society has deemed this unacceptable", I have absolutely no position to say that anything is actually wrong, or right even.But what is your alternative? I submit to you that society is all we have. Would your alternative be God? Something that cannot even be shown to another person? Something that cannot be proven? Something that there is a possibility (no matter how large, or small...) that this God could be made up? Or may even be just a creation from our ancient society in the first place?I submit that our thoughts of being "good"... our thoughts of striving to be the best we can be... our thoughts of somehow becoming more than we are... our thoughts of constant improvement...
I submit that these thoughts are extremely important. I put forward that they are the most important thoughts our society currently has. With this in mind, I am not able to let any of it possibly rely on something that has any chance (no matter how slim) of being a falsehood.I further submit, that if there is some being, some force, some judgement waiting for me... for us. If that being would blame me, for striving to be the best me I can be, using any and all resources I come across, and making sure I'm not taking chances with extremely important thoughts. If I was so blamed... then this being isn't worth the life I would have lived sucking up to it.My important thoughts, this human society's important thoughts... are too important to leave to chance.I can show you society. I can prove that society exists. I can give you, or anyone... show you, or anyone... exactly why I do the good things I do. It is not because something says to do it "or else". It is because, with all the knowledge humans have collected over the thousands of years we have been on this planet... we have decided that these are the right things to do.Yes, since society is all we have. And "us" is all there is to communicate with... why should anything else be used? What's wrong with using the only available measuring stick (our own society) to guide our own advancement?Wow... that got preachy. I apologize

Well there's no way to know. It just so happens that religions were one of the paths in developing our structure. Would we have arrived here without them? Who knows? I think they were a pretty important part in the very early developments of our structure and that it would have failed without them. I don't think there are certain things that could only be provided through religion, but that religion was the best way at that particular time in providing those things. Almost like it was a result of natural selection.But like you said, this part of our discussion would be better in a different topic. Let's not drag this thread further off-topic. Yes, and I don't find that to be a sufficient reason to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Well, yes and no.I think it suggests god but it doesn't necesitate one. But I don't think that adding god removes importance from those things. Sure, if the only reason you do the results of those things is from the fear of god then the importance of them, themselves, is removed. But in actuality, I don't think that the fear of god is the only reason people do those things, and that those things maintain their importance.I think the fear of god adds to the doing of the results of those important things. And in our early history, we might not have been able to put a firm footing on those things without the threat of god. What do you mean leave them to chance and what are the consequences of leaving them to chance? Like I just typed, I'm not sure we would have been able to accomplish this without using religions. I'm not suggesting that religions have something to offer that something else cannot, but that with our given history, religion was the way it needed to be done. This might be the crux because I don't feel that society and "us" is all that we have. It really does seem to me that god exists. If it really is there then we might as well use it. IMHO, it wouldn't be this good if we didn't have the religions and it might have failed altogether.

---

ABE: No need to apologize... I liked it Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:

Yeah, you're right. Nope.Sorry for the confusion.

I am actually slightly inclined to agree with you here. As far as our deep past is concerned, anyway. I do not fully conceed the point, because, well... I hope it isn't right But I really don't know much about this kind of early-history, and I wouldn't be able to support any assertions I would make. The point I'm trying to make, is that I personally find these thoughts... let's sum them as "human advancement"... as very important. Perhaps even the most important. Do we agree on that?With these important ideals, I cannot honestly-intellectually leave their guidance and further development up to chance.When we leave them up to a God (any God, really) there is a chance that this God is nothing more than a fabrication from our ancient society. I deem these thoughts of human advancement too important to hand them over to something that may be (no matter how slim) false. I need to be sure that these important ideals are being developed on concrete grounds, with evidencial support. Society (our laws and regulations) are on these concrete grounds. Society is real. Society is the largest, most powerful real thing we know of. I cannot take the chance of letting a possible falsehood lead our human advancement. I must allow our largest, most powerful, most capable known force (society) deal with them.I am saying that handing these things over to Religion, or God, is taking a chance... hoping that these things are real, and beneficial. I would rather hand these things over to Society, which we know to be real, and beneficial.Now, if you could prove that God, or any higher being/force is real and has a better standard for us to be living up to... that's something else entirely and something I would be extremely interested in learning about. Yes, but there's a chance that it really isn't there, as well. God cannot be proven. Society can. Society is the most powerful, beneficial force that has been proven in all of human existance. I will put my most important efforts into Society, rather than something which no one can show me even actually exists, or even something that I cannot show to anyone else that it actually exists.That is, my important thougts are so important, that I must even prove to myself that I am not fooling myself with how I deal with them. As I said above, I am slightly inclined to agree with you on this point. However, we are here now, and (regardless of how) we are past that point. We know things now that we did not know then. To me, we must use our current knowedge to the best of our abilities. If that means laying to the side some very helpful things from the past before they hold us back, then so be it. Tradition cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the importance of human development.

I got wrapped up in talking about my point, I forgot to answer the second part of your question I hope my previous post has explained what I mean about leaving them to chance. Now the consequences of doing so:If we leave our important thoughts of human advancement up to Religion and/or God without concrete proof that these things exist we are basically gambling with our most important ideals. These important thoughts are too important to me to leave them in any situation where I do not know for sure that they stand on good, solid foundations.And what if Religions were nothing more than a long-forgotten human fabrication? We would be pushing our most important ideals into an extremely out-dated hole. I cannot take that chance, no matter how small it may or may not be.And then there's the worst possible situation. Someone from Religion says they have found an Absolute structure or regiment to which all our values and important ideals should always adhere. I refer to this scenario as Stagnation. How can we possibly know we have the best, that we have found the greatest way for the human race to live, if we stop looking for alternatives? The very second we start thinking "I am good, I have nothing else to strive for" is the same second we become lost in our own ego.There can always be one better way to do things. Or one nicer thing we could do for someone else. I would rather spend my life trying to figure as many of these things out as I can, and possibly even helping the human race to advance even the slightest amount in figuring these things out... then spending my life thinking we know how best to live, and we are ready to relax and gloat in it. I am deathly afraid of Stagnation, and not only where my morals or this worldly sense of goodness is concerned.

We can say that human advancement is the most important, yes. On one side I'm thinking that you don't really have a choice and that chance might be inevitable (natural selection). But on the other side, I understand your concern with leaving human advancement in the hands of religions, when they could all be B.S. anyways. So you're justified in wanting to have human advancement in the hands of society, not religions. and yet you say: Funny, that hope stuff What are you gonna do if and when, after handed over to society, society chooses the religion route? Eh.... notta so much in the Middle East, yeah? I agree, although I could argue against that if I was a fundamentalist. Because if the fundy's are right, then human advancement isn't the most important thing, don't you think? I don;t think human development should destroy tradition though.

Yes, I do have two standards there. However, if you would like to point out the flaws in not wanting to "hope I'm right with the most important things in my life" and being okay to "hope I'm right with some trivial point I've already half-conceeded"... I'm all ears There's nothing wrong with having different standards with things of vastly different importance. I have not been entirely clear on what I've been meaning by "Society". I think you know exactly what I'm talking about, but I'll try to explain it anyway, since you did point out my flaw I do not mean to say that I am giving my thoughts of morality up to society, and letting them decide what is best and what is not. It is not an ouput-only system. I do not just listen to society and take for granted that it has come up with the best solutions. It is more of a very involved feed-back-system. That is, society has it's thoughts on what is moral, I take those thoughts, scrutinize them, and feed them back into society. With everyone doing this, we end up with progress, in the beneficial direction. This is why things like prejudice and descrimination are being corrected. Society once thought these things are fine. People like you and me knew better, and they got together, sometimes even forming laws, and have produced our current society. This current society is not best yet, but it is getting better.I am not so much taking society's morals for granted (I find that equally as bad as taking Religious morals for granted) as I am basing my morals on proven societal rules from the past 5000+years, and adding in my own thoughts that will hopefully continue our beneficial progress. When I say Society, I am not talking about a snap-shot of our current modern system. I am talking about the entire feedback process... from 5000+ years ago, and still very much in-progress today.So, to specifically address your question:
If Society chose to go the Religious route, I would take this as "wrong" and "bad" for human advancement, and strive to make people aware of this, and hopefully get Society back on track in an evidence-based beneficial path.In balance to this, I am certainly open to being persuaded by my fellow Society-members that I am wrong, and am actually pushing Society in the wrong direction. However, in order to convince me, they will have to be able to actually convince me with valid evidence."A black man is as much a human as a white man and should be able to vote, go to school, and ride the same bus"... to me, is painfully obvious, and Society is moving in the right direction when it supports such things."Gay people are wrong and shouldn't be allowed to get married because this book says so"... to me, is painfully incorrect, and Society is moving in the wrong direction if it supports such things. I agree with you again. But I must point out that just because "people over there" are doing bad things, does not give us an excuse to continue the same practices when we know better, and are capable of correcting those problems. I would have thought such a practice would be obvious, no? You really do like to pick out the obvious points, eh?
Yes, I agree again. If the Fundy's are right, then human advancement (trying to be the best, most caring and benevolent society we can be) is not the most important thing. I guess I'm just lucky that it's rather simple to show that the Fundy's aren't right. If you truly are teetering on this edge... perhaps you should be in the Noah's Ark threads? I would think, again obviously, that this would depend on what we mean by human development, and what we mean by tradition.I agree that if we mean bigger skyscrapers by human development and public heath care by tradition, then no it is not good.However, if we mean becoming the most benevolently advanced human society possible... which I did when I said that... and tradition is nothing more than something we did in the past that we no longer need... which I also meant when I said that... then I think you're just trying to attack my tank with your feather

Consider the term defined for the purpose of this discussion. I see benefits to religions and think they can promote human advancement. I'm still trying to come up with that thing that can only be provided with religion though.... So I'm not totally convinced it is absolutely necessary, but I do think it is a good think to keep around. As long as it doesn't get too much in the way of advancement (muslim women's rights for example). Sounds like another thread to me... The point was that we might not be past that point yet. I realize they're not profound but I think its a good idea to explore the boundaries of the other's position. Oh....no, its not luck I'm not teetering, I've got my feet firmly planted in reality. Just not too firmly Just trying to figure out exaclty what you are saying typing.Do you think that a lack of need for a tradition is enough reason to destroy it? Or only if it is inhibiting human advancement?

Makes no difference whether God can be proved or not.If society kept the last 5 commandments of the Bible there would be no jails, no hunger, no poverty, no problems at all. [qs]Society can. Society is the most powerful, beneficial force that has been proven in all of human existance.[qs] Why do we need more jails?Why do we have hunger in the world?Why do we have wars all the time?Why if society is so good do we have all these things?Jesus gave 2 commandments and if we kept one of them the world would be a much better place to live.He said: "Love thy neighbor as thyself.I sure do love me, but do I love my neighbor as much as I love me?Truthfully, No.

I had anticipated a long post here, but maybe I can ask in one sentence; What do you think are the actual differences in religious morals and society's morals? Isn't it fairly obvious that religious morals are the same as non-religious ones?Many theists here have agreed that atheists are moral. We would not be in any position to judge this if we did not see them using the same morality that we do. Therefore all morality is the same, all of it evolves, all of it comes from society's interactions. The only difference is in whether an individual believes that God 'helps out' or that it's all on us. The result is the same.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Then why is the proportion of christians in jail essentially the same as the proportion of christians in the general population?If anything there are slightly fewer atheists in jail than in the general population (but the degree is statistically insignificant⁽¹⁾ imho): shouldn't there be significantly higher numbers of atheists in jail if your assertion were even partly true?Enjoy.

---

⁽¹⁾ - there are more uneducated people in jail than in the general population (and education has been shown to significantly reduce recidivism). Atheists do tend to be more educated, so this could explain the slight decrease in atheist prison populations.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Because Man (and by extension society) is not perfect. Aside being blantantly obvious isn't this also one of the basics concepts of the christian mythology?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor