Society After Religion

jank

Zombrex wrote: »

All you have to do is contrast pre-Enlightenment society with post-Enlightenment society to see that we are going to be just fine (in all likelihood, I mean we could destroy the planet with a killer nano-bot)

In pretty much every variable you can measure thinks have improve significantly as we have found and nurtured better ways to learn and discover the natural world around us.

I don't see this as being caused by atheism, but it certainly causes atheism, as the old religious notions of how the world is simply cannot stand up to proper scrutiny.

Atheism will increase but simply because our knowledge and education will increase. The latter causes the former.

That presumes that humans actually make a leap forward in mind and spirit but we all know what humans are like. It also presumes that religion in its current format will just stand still and not "evolve".

One more thing, you mention the post enlightenment age is an era of progression, learning, discovery etc. This doesn't mean we are better people and we create a better society. The last 100 years have been the most advanced in history. Yet we have had 2 world wars, nuclear weapons, genocide and political ideologues that strip away the basic humans rights to think and be free. Namely fascism and communism. Religion was in the back seat a for most of the 20th centuries conflicts bar the holocaust and that was more to do with race than religion.

Science and discovery can only take us so far. Being human cannot be summarized into an algorithm.

robindch wrote: »

Take a look at the underground church movement in China -- religion is far from dead there, though the communists certainly wish it were (and they are rightly concerned about its influence)..

I would very much appreciate a clarification on this as my previous request was ignored.

ISAW

GarIT wrote: »

The difference in the no evidence scenario is that it is still possible.

so is astrology anfd aliens buzzing the earth in UFOs why isnt that as important to you?

But the evidence would be approx 20 students out of 180 getting ashes on ash Wednesday and that's in a Christian brothers school. The head priest actually had to ask for the people going to get ashes to come to the front about three times. To me that would show a lack of religion or a lack of people willing to show their religion. The part that would show that is growing would be that I received a detention for being the only person that didn't get communion 6 years ago.

first of all that detention was a stupid exercise. what they should have done was insist you be suitable disposed by attendance at another place if you did not want to attend Mass. e;g; they could use the detention room.

But while you evidence is a small sample it could be construed to show the opposite i.e. that people are thinking about religion. It does not mean only 11% of them believe in God.

Galvasean

jank wrote: »

I would very much appreciate a clarification on this as my previous request was ignored.

My reading of it is that Robin was implying that the Communists are concerned about the growing numbers of religious people as they could one day challenge their rule.

robindch

jank wrote: »

One more thing, you mention the post enlightenment age is an era of progression, learning, discovery etc. This doesn't mean we are better people and we create a better society. The last 100 years have been the most advanced in history. Yet we have had 2 world wars, nuclear weapons, genocide and political ideologues that strip away the basic humans rights to think and be free.

Have a read of Stephen Pinker's latest book:

http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0670022950

jank wrote: »

I would very much appreciate a clarification on this as my previous request was ignored.

The most violent civil war in human history is a relatively unknown (in the West at least) war of 19th century China, fomented by a christian fundamentalist named Hong Xiuquan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion

Given that US-style christian fundamentalists have, over the last number of years, created a new religious movement in the country which explicitly rejects state control, the Chinese communists are right to be concerned that this could be a credible political threat.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

The most violent civil war in human history is a relatively unknown (in the West at least) war of 19th century China, fomented by a christian fundamentalist named Hong Xiuquan:

Chinese communists are right to be concerned that this could be a credible political threat.

wrote about it some time ago in Christianity forum in relation to atheistic atrocities. He was not christian. In my view it was a war between atheists and a non christian with a twisted personal interpretation of Christianity. If I am thinking of the same guy. Rummel has some stats on, him i think. But atheistic china has a history of these even before that.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP2.HTM
Even close to our time people have been murdered in the millions, as in the Teiping Rebellion in China in the mid-18th century. Of all pre-twentieth century killing--massacres, infanticide, executions, genocides, sacrifices, burnings, deaths by mistreatment, and the like--that for which corpses have been counted or estimated, surely but a fraction, add up to a range of near 89,000,000 to slightly over 260,000,000 million men, women, and children dead. An appropriate mid-democide estimate might be around 133,000,000 killed.

recedite

ISAW wrote: »

then we get into hard and soft agnostics.
i usually use the ARIS Nones survey for the definitions.
http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/
Page 11 in the Nones report i think.

That's a very obvious flaw in the poll then, seeing as the majority of atheists would also think there was no proof one way or another of the existence of god/s. Yet they apparently could only pick one of these two labels, atheist or hard agnostic.
"Hard" and "soft" agnostics are not proper definitions. Agnostic means you don't know definitively the answer to a question. Either you know, or you don't. Anything else is an opinion or a belief.

GarIT wrote: »

....I received a detention for being the only person that didn't get communion 6 years ago.

Doesn't seem to have cured you though :pac:
In the old days they burned heretics at the stake; now that was a real punishment.

ISAW

recedite wrote: »

That's a very obvious flaw in the poll then, seeing as the majority of atheists would also think there was no proof one way or another of the existence of god/s. Yet they apparently could only pick one of these two labels, atheist or hard agnostic.

to be accurate it isnt a flaw at all.
the poll is valid; You differe as to what it measures because you differ as to what atheism is defined as.
But it validly measures the people who say "there is no such thing as god" and those who say "i dont know or cant say of there is a god"

i would ten do agree with them that agnostics dont know and atheists disbelieve in God.

Anyway that is what they measure

"Hard" and "soft" agnostics are not proper definitions. Agnostic means you don't know definitively the answer to a question. Either you know, or you don't. Anything else is an opinion or a belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

British philosopher belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought, he was notable for his works on the philosophy of religion.
first to use "positive" and "negative" in 1976

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/flew01.htm
"In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter."

thus there is no god -is a positive atheist and
i am not a theist- becomes a negative atheist

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
Strong atheism and hard atheism are alternates for the term positive atheism, whereas weak atheism and soft atheism are alternates for negative atheism

Nones were individuals who responded to the question: What is your religion, if any? with “none,” “atheist,” “agnostic,” “secular,” or “humanist.”

They were asked sampling error is +/- 2.38%.

Regarding the existence of God, do you think…?%nones

There is no such thing Atheist 7
There is no way to know Hard Agnostic 19
I’m not sure Soft Agnostic 16
There is a higher power but no personal God Deist 24
There is definitely a personal God Theist 27
Percentage US Adults
(N= 1,015)
% US Adults
2
4
6
12
70
Don’t Know/Refused N/A 7 6

from the above using the flew terminology 7%of nones or 2% odf US adults are positivre or hard atheists and 35% of nones or 10% of Us adults are negative or soft atheists.

we also find the Us total of adult nones had doubled from 8 to 15 between 1990 and 2008
page 17

but in opposition to Zombrex claim of atheists being more educated and this being a causal factor the college education level had increased not by 100 but by about 50% from 10 to 16% and the other education levels show similar . this negative correlation of population increase versus educational attainment actually contradicts Zombrex suggestion.

Cossax

ISAW wrote: »

but in opposition to Zombrex claim of atheists being more educated and this being a causal factor the college education level had increased not by 100 but by about 50% from 10 to 16% and the other education levels show similar . this negative correlation of population increase versus educational attainment actually contradicts Zombrex suggestion.

In English?

GarIT

ISAW wrote: »

so is astrology anfd aliens buzzing the earth in UFOs why isnt that as important to you?


first of all that detention was a stupid exercise. what they should have done was insist you be suitable disposed by attendance at another place if you did not want to attend Mass. e;g; they could use the detention room.

But while you evidence is a small sample it could be construed to show the opposite i.e. that people are thinking about religion. It does not mean only 11% of them believe in God.

They just aren't I believe things that I think are logical, I do believe in life on other planets, it could be cells, bacteria, or anything similar not little green men or anything like that.

I didn't actually do the detention, I complained that it was discrimination and pointed out that is didn't mention it anywhere in the rule book so they never said anything again.

jank

robindch wrote: »

Given that US-style christian fundamentalists have, over the last number of years, created a new religious movement in the country which explicitly rejects state control, the Chinese communists are right to be concerned that this could be a credible political threat.

Anything that counter acts forms of state control especially in Communist China should be welcomed. I cant think of a more despicable evil than communism.

strobe

jank wrote: »

Anything that counter acts forms of state control especially in Communist China should be welcomed. I cant think of a more despicable evil than communism.

'Totalitarianism' rather than 'communism', Shirley?

dead one

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I fear you are right. Like the poor, ignorance, superstition and gullibility will probably always be with us.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

If this cosmos was designed by something, it sure has a few massive design faults in it.:)

Science can cheat you...



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Buzz" Aldrin walking on the moon in 1969. Should there be stars in the sky? (NASA)[/FONT]

Science and superstitions



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Astronaut Alan Shepard p!sses on American flag on the moon. Notice the wrinkles in the flag and the direction of the shadows on the ground. (NASA)[/FONT]

Delirium

Conspiracy Forum ---->

Sarky

dead one is obviously terrified of being taken seriously and doing everything in his power to ensure otherwise. We've been over the moon-landing thing before, you know. You'd think he'd remember. We all had a good laugh at his expense. Because thinking the moon-landing was faked is, frankly, stupid.

Delirium

Sarky wrote: »

dead one is obviously terrified of being taken seriously and doing everything in his power to ensure otherwise. We've been over the moon-landing thing before, you know. You'd think he'd remember. We all had a good laugh at his expense. Because thinking the moon-landing was faked is, frankly, stupid.

I enjoy the irony that he/she is not convinced that man travelled to the moon, but an all powerful deity created this reality is entirely reasonable.

MagicMarker

Tell dead one how the moon was formed and his head will explode.

Sarky

Bonus points if you're a woman who swears.

legspin

MagicMarker wrote: »

Tell dead one how the moon was formed and his head will explode.

Nah, the information will never get past the interference from the nonsense he carries in there.
I'd say it is possible to make his head explode but forum rules prevent such fun from being had.

jank

strobe wrote: »

'Totalitarianism' rather than 'communism', Shirley?

You can have totalitarianism without communism but you cannot have communism without totalitarianism. The essence of communism is to strip away the individual in preference of the collective.

ISAW

jank wrote: »

You can have totalitarianism without communism but you cannot have communism without totalitarianism. The essence of communism is to strip away the individual in preference of the collective.

Could have Authoritarian communism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism#Difference_between_authoritarian_and_totalitarian_regimes

Dave!

jank wrote: »

You can have totalitarianism without communism but you cannot have communism without totalitarianism. The essence of communism is to strip away the individual in preference of the collective.

And that's the most "despicable evil" you can think of? Using rape as a weapon, as in many civil wars, is pretty bad... Child rape in general is pretty despicable too. Mass murder? Torture?

You're just not using your imagination

jank

No, look at the link. Totalitarianism is driven by many forces, one of them is a strong believe in an ideology for example communism (a classless, equal, stateless nation and society). Authoritarianism doesn't really do ideology.

Many people like Hannah Ardnet think that totalitarianism is an evolution of other forms of government, mainly authoritarianism, despotism etc.

Totalitarian movements are fundamentally different from autocratic regimes, says Arendt, insofar as autocratic regimes seek only to gain absolute political power and to outlaw opposition, while totalitarian regimes seek to dominate every aspect of everyone's life as a prelude to world domination. Arendt discusses the use of front organizations, fake governmental agencies, and esoteric doctrines as a means of concealing the radical nature of totalitarian aims from the non-totalitarian world.

Galvasean

ISAW wrote: »

wrote about it some time ago in Christianity forum in relation to atheistic atrocities. He was not christian. In my view it was a war between atheists and a non christian with a twisted personal interpretation of Christianity. If I am thinking of the same guy. Rummel has some stats on, him i think. But atheistic china has a history of these even before that.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP2.HTM

Is that not a tad, 'no true Scotsman'?

On an unrelated note, moon landing FTW!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU

ISAW

Galvasean wrote: »

Is that not a tad, 'no true Scotsman'?

I wouldnt think so
the chinese state was atheist s we leave that bit


the other side ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
The Taiping Rebellion was a widespread civil war in southern China from 1850 to 1864, led by heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan, who, having received visions, maintained that he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ,[1] against the ruling Manchu-led Qing Dynasty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodoxy
Heterodoxy is generally defined as "any opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox position".[1] As an adjective, heterodox is commonly used to describe a subject as "characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards" (status quo). Under this definition the noun heterodoxy is synonymous with unorthodoxy, while the adjective heterodox is synonymous with dissident.

quite an established definition and not something I just added as a "no true christian"

jank

Dave! wrote: »

And that's the most "despicable evil" you can think of? Using rape as a weapon, as in many civil wars, is pretty bad... Child rape in general is pretty despicable too. Mass murder? Torture?

You're just not using your imagination

Clearly your not thinking out of the box here. You are looking at despicable evil "acts". Sure child rape, murder, torture etc are not nice things to put it mildly.

However, communism in my view takes away the very essence to what it is to be human, it takes away the individual, the human spirit, the mind, the thought. When that happens all humans are ants living in a field at the behest of nameless "leaders".

Did you ever really think of what the words " I think, therefore I am" mean? There is no us, or we, or they. It is you and your free conscience, to doubt or not to doubt your existence.

When I was in Cambodia 4 years ago I came across a poem written by Sarith Pou detailing life under the Khmer Rouge. Standing there reading it, in the infamous S21 prison where those famous, emotionless, nameless black and white portraits were staring back at you, like ghosts from the past, I felt such a deep sadness and fear of what it would have been like to life in their shoes. Just like ants in the fields, literary. I think of out of all the tried communist regimes in the world, the Khmer Rouges' year zero experiment to create a Utopian agrarian society was indeed the most frightening.

So, pardon me but I have plenty of imagination.

If you want a read.
http://allegedtraveler.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/khmer-rouge.html

Cossax

ISAW wrote: »

I wouldnt think so
the chinese state was atheist s we leave that bit


the other side ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion
The Taiping Rebellion was a widespread civil war in southern China from 1850 to 1864, led by heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan, who, having received visions, maintained that he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ,[1] against the ruling Manchu-led Qing Dynasty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodoxy
Heterodoxy is generally defined as "any opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox position".[1] As an adjective, heterodox is commonly used to describe a subject as "characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards" (status quo). Under this definition the noun heterodoxy is synonymous with unorthodoxy, while the adjective heterodox is synonymous with dissident.

quite an established definition and not something I just added as a "no true christian"

So you're admitting he was a Christian then? Excellent. A quick read of the wiki about him seems to confirm he is, self-proclaimed brother of Jesus, quite into the Bible, even managed to meet God!

Sarky

He's not a Christian because he did mean things, and got caught, obviously. That last part is important. If he'd succeeded, he'd be a saint by now.

strobe

jank wrote: »

You can have totalitarianism without communism but you cannot have communism without totalitarianism. The essence of communism is to strip away the individual in preference of the collective.

Totalitarianism is a system whereby the State seeks to assert control over every possible aspect of the citizenries lives...

...but you yourself go on in your very next post to use the loose definition of communism below. (in bold)

jank wrote: »

No, look at the link. Totalitarianism is driven by many forces, one of them is a strong believe in an ideology for example communism (a classless, equal, stateless nation and society). Authoritarianism doesn't really do ideology.

Many people like Hannah Ardnet think that totalitarianism is an evolution of other forms of government, mainly authoritarianism, despotism etc.

You say you 'cannot have communism without totalitarianism'...

You believe you can't have 'a classless, equal, stateless nation and society' without a system whereby the state seeks to control the lives of it's citizens totally?

How do you have absolute state control without a state?

The fact that communism is an ideology and to use your own words again 'Totalitarianism is driven by many forces, one of them is a strong belief in an ideology' does not mean totalitarianism, a social order whereby the states seeks absolute control in all areas, is a necessary facet of communism, a stateless social order. The ideologies are absolutely incompatible if anything.

How does one have free association and also dictate totally who and what shall associate with who and what and in what way?

Ideally communism (or anarchism) come about from the ground up through the overwhelming will of the people and endures the same way. When communism is enforced by a State it is not communism.

Sonics2k

Sarky wrote: »

Bonus points if you're a woman who swears.

Bonus bonus points if you do it with pirated software.

Sarky

Irony bonus!

Ok, so the best way to make his head explode is to be a woman, explaining how the moon was formed using rude words, with a presentation created on pirated software. You could probably smack him whenever he disagrees while telling him it's for his own good too. Are we missing anything?