Odd concessions from old atheists

Galvasean

"Our first survey ships to Alpha Centauri "

That's where the Transformers live

pH

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

It is fairly difficult to imagine because we exist in a culture that is largely derived from religious influences. Could we be better now? maybe, maybe we might be exploring the stars. Might we of killed ourselves off a long time ago? It's a possibility also.

I would agree that organized religion needs to be phased out of society, but in the vacuum what replaces it? I think it is better that we create a society first that no longer needs any dogmatic religions and let it die off naturally. The fact that so many people still cling to their beliefs so vehemently shows we have not got there yet.

I think is a very narrow minded view of religion (and I find it strange as I normally agree with most of your posts). You're looking at religion as a citizen of a western first world country, viewing European history with rose tinted glasses.

Look, the Rwandan genocide happened in a very religious country (95% Christian), Hitler's beliefs aside, the majority of Germans at the time of the 2nd world war were religious, and for every Italian renaissance that people are so happy to attribute to religion there's a corresponding Taleban regime.

I fail to see this "vacuum" that religion leaves, in fact the "Emperor's new clothes" sums up this situation very well, religion doesn't change people's behaviour, it doesn't convert them from nihilistic misanthropes to model citizens, it's a thin veneer, a self-perpetuating con-job of epic proportions that exists solely to give power, status and wealth to those running it. However we're all conditioned to give your response above, "ahhh yes but where would we be without it?"

Now we can play games by redefining religion to mean just the "good" ones, but it we take what religion is at its core (a mass, organised systematic set of beliefs around worshipping a deity - and no I'm not particularly interested in whether Buddhism is or is not a religion), then that could be removed from society tomorrow and I doubt we'd even notice the difference - albeit some lazy and ignorant (mainly) men who find the idea of working for a living too much like hard work would have to find other ways to trick people into having power over them in their lives.

Goduznt Xzst

pH wrote: »

I think is a very narrow minded view of religion

Yes, imo, it's farcical, yes its deluded, yes it can be replaced but does it have any worth or value? Whether physical, mental or otherwise. You say it is only a thin-veneer, but it is a veneer that can fundamentally change the actions of an individual.

Like I said, the fact that religions still exist is tantamount to my point that humans still have a need for religion, whether culturally indoctrinated or otherwise. I think it is your view that might be slightly narrow minded in a western sense. You remove the hope of an afterlife or the reward of eternal bliss from everyone who believes and I think there would be widespread chaos and despair amongst a large percentage of the population. I cannot say that belief is not the only driving force for people in the third world or people with nothing of meaning to live for.

The first step in my opinion is working towards a society that has no need for religion, that is economically stable, that preserves the rights of the individual and is constantly moving towards the betterment of itself and of every citizen. If you can give humans this for at least 2 solid generations you would see the need for the religions that sell fear, guilt and their own brand of morality dying off rather quickly.

We are on the same page, we are just reading the paragraphs in a different order. You think religion needs to go first and then society will naturally adjust, I think society needs to be stabilized first and then the dogmatic religions will cease to exist. The end result is the same, a stable society with no religion.

pH

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes, imo, it's farcical, yes its deluded, yes it can be replaced but does it have any worth or value? Whether physical, mental or otherwise. You say it is only a thin-veneer, but it is a veneer that can fundamentally change the actions of an individual.

No, I don't think so. It would seem obvious that this huge carrot and stick of heaven and hell for good and bad behaviour would make people behave better, but when you look at the evidence it seems to make no difference.

Like I said, the fact that religions still exist is tantamount to my point that humans still have a need for religion, whether culturally indoctrinated or otherwise.

Sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me, it's like saying:

- Rapists still exists - humans still have a need for rape.
- Conmen still exist - humans still have a need for cons.
etc.

I think it is your view that might be slightly narrow minded in a western sense. You remove the hope of an afterlife or the reward of eternal bliss from everyone who believes and I think there would be widespread chaos and despair amongst a large percentage of the population.

Absolutely not, large percentages of many civilisations have now (and have had in the past) no belief in an eternal bliss afterlife, and I can't think of one instance it's brought widespread chaos and despair.

We are on the same page, we are just reading the paragraphs in a different order. You think religion needs to go first and then society will naturally adjust, I think society needs to be stabilized first and then the dogmatic religions will cease to exist. The end result is the same, a stable society with no religion.

No, I think that no adjustment is needed, religion is not now, nor has ever been a stabilising or positive force, and it could be removed tomorrow with no problems.

Naz_st

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You say it is only a thin-veneer, but it is a veneer that can fundamentally change the actions of an individual.

pH wrote: »

No, I don't think so.

Edit: I think it can fundamentally change the actions of an individual, in a negative way:
e.g. Suicide Bombers.

If there is no afterlife and no reward, there's no rational justification for this action.

I agree with you generally as I believe religion has had a detrimental effect on society as a whole since it is fundamentally a divisive and polarising force, with extravagant and unprovable truth claims, and is generally intolerant of criticism, change or contradictory beliefs.

Goduznt Xzst

pH wrote: »

Absolutely not, large percentages of many civilisations have now (and have had in the past) no belief in an eternal bliss afterlife, and I can't think of one instance it's brought widespread chaos and despair.

Yes... by choice though. How, without giving people a tangible alternative to belief do you expect them to give it up? I understand your point, I just don't think it is tenable or realistic.

pH wrote: »

No, I think that no adjustment is needed, religion is not now, nor has ever been a stabilising or positive force, and it could be removed tomorrow with no problems.

How though?

I agree, hypothetically, if humans where to wake up tomorrow and forget they ever believed in God that society would not break down. But I'm asking how, realistically, you imagine this can be achieved. My point has been all along that religion is so deeply ingrained in our traditions, culture and society that you can't easily just uproot it.

pH

Naz_st wrote: »

Suicide Bombers.

If there is no afterlife and no reward, there's no rational justification for this action.

I agree with you generally though insofar as I believe religion has had a detrimental effect on society as a whole since it is fundamentally a divisive and polarising force, with extravagant and unprovable truth claims, and is generally intolerant of criticism, change or contradictory beliefs.

Sorry? You believe that Suicide bombers are a counter example to my claim that religion doesn't appear to make people behave better?

I'm not sure what point you're making, but even if you take suicide bombers an extreme end point on a scale, there are still other acts of bravery to consider, for instance in times of war soldiers doing things that mean pretty much certain death to protect their brethren or even to achieve a goal for the cause.

I guess what I'm saying is that it would be an outrageous claim that the only people who've laid their lives down in the course of a war or cause were religious folks who were doing so believing that they were on the way to heaven.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Yes... by choice though. How, without giving people a tangible alternative to belief do you expect them to give it up? I understand your point, I just don't think it is tenable or realistic.

One second, I agree with you it's certainly not realistic, religion is probably with us for a while yet.

How though?

I guess through more education, there seems to be a strong inverse correlation between education and religious belief - I wouldn't be certain to say it's causation but it would be where I would start.

I agree, hypothetically, if humans where to wake up tomorrow and forget they ever believed in God that society would not break down. But I'm asking how, realistically, you imagine this can be achieved. My point has been all along that religion is so deeply ingrained in our traditions, culture and society that you can't easily just uproot it.

I honestly don't know, nor (and this may surprise you) do I sit around of an evening planning religion's downfall.

I guess I'm just answering the OP's questions in his hypothetical world with no religion I personally am not convinced we'd miss any of it.

Naz_st

pH wrote: »

Sorry? You believe that Suicide bombers are a counter example to my claim that religion doesn't appear to make people behave better?

I'm not sure what point you're making, but even if you take suicide bombers an extreme end point on a scale, there are still other acts of bravery to consider, for instance in times of war soldiers doing things that mean pretty much certain death to protect their brethren or even to achieve a goal for the cause.

Sorry, my bad for being confusing:

Goduznt said that "it is a veener that can fundamentally change the actions of an individual" and you disagreed. I was pointing out that religious beliefs can change the actions of an individual, and usually in a negative way. So I agree with your original assertion. (Sorry for not making that clearer in the first place!)

gaynorvader

Zillah wrote: »

I think you're being a little simplistic here. Any sort of social upheaval is going to be...well, an upheaval. Yeah there might be food shortages, burning towns and collapsing infrastructure. Look at the French Revolution as a sample study perhaps...

The French Revolution happened well after the infastructure was in place, what I'm saying is not that the infastructure would've been destroyed, but that there would have been little need of it to begin with, people would probably still hunt in the forests, and farms would probably only be for vegetables.