Imagine, there's no heaven

Niall001 · Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:58 am Post subject: Re: Imagine, there's no heaven

Garricker

Quote:
But religion does add an element, a flash point if you will, that is easily exploited by those who want to make use of it to promote their own ends. And in places in the world where the political situation is unstable, religious differences may exacerbate existing fault lines so that they become the tipping point, pushing a society into chaos.

I think that you're probably right here, but what I'm uncertain of, is if you were to remove religion from the situation, what would happen? Would some other sort of belief system take its place? Would we just replace God with Good? Would people become equally obsessed in following what Goodness directs us to do? Would the philosophies that lead us to decide what constitutes Good and Evil/Bad take over the roles that holy books have taken?

I'm not arguing that they would, I'm just asking the question.

Dissiden

Quote:
I think the same thought experiment could be made of say, technology: Imagine there's no technology.

At first, I had a pretty similar reaction to Fiske when you asked the question. I think that religion and technology can't really be compared. For one thing, if you take out religion, there are secular equivalents that could probably take its place. Where as, if we imagine no technology, well, there isn't really anything that can replace it.

However, I suppose technology is different to science. If we chose to, we could probably do away with technology to a certain extent, and by using scientific knowledge, we could prevent certain diseases etc.

Quote:
Part of a delusion is purposefully not seeing what is clearly right in front of you
Quote:

Actually, I think that part of the definition of a Delusion is that it is not a choice. But that isn't really here nor there.

Mr. P
Quote:

I can agree that maybe technology needs to be checked as well as religious overindulgence. I do not think that just because we C

This is certainly an issue. We were a hair away from a nuclear winter not all that long ago. Science has brought us to a point where we could wipe ourselves out, not to mention every other living creature on the planet.

The problem with both science and religion is deciding what constitutes an overindulgence. One solution would be to eliminate them both, but that would be a bit of a waste in my opinion.

Dissident

Quote:
What if the questions were: To what extent does religion encourage peace? If religious justifications for peace and the like were intensified, then would the world become safer, and could this help mobilize other attempts at peace making?

Now there's the interesting point. If as garrick says, religion can exacerbate existing fault lines in conflict situations, then are there not also situations where it is (or at least can be) used to push societies back from the edge of chaos?

Full of Porn*

http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

irishrosem · Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:11 am Post subject: Quiet proselytizing

Dissident: I've not finished Dawkins' book yet, and I don't know if he mentions the growing movements of religions environmentalism or ecotheology across the planet. Maybe I've missed it, but I don't see it in the index either.

Why on god's green earth (heh heh) would you even imagine that Dawkins would mention this? I really question your motives sometimes. I find you don't really like to engage in discussion so much as you enjoy preaching. Which is also why, I think, you didn't respond to my question/request above.

irishrosem · Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:24 am Post subject: Re: Imagine there's no tech

Niall: I tend to think that regardless of the prevailing philosophy, people will tend to be people, and people with certain personality types and intelligence levels will always become sheeple.

I definitely hear you; I never give people's minds the benefit of the doubt. I just think that religion lends itself to creating sheeple. It, in fact, revels in and often relies on ignorance (and faith) which does not lend itself to critical thinking. Will people always question ideas if released from the shackles of religion? No. But they are less likely to think critically if they are told, and believe, they are going to hell for it. Why encourage blind acceptance? Why encourage indoctrination? Why encourage faith without knowledge? Religion (specifically Christianity in the U.S.) continues to do all these things.

BTW, sheeple is a pretty common term here in the states. Probably because we have more than many other countries.

Frank 013 · Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:44 pm Post subject: Re: Imagine there's no tech

People: people can be hot headed, companionate, rude, charitable, violent, kind… well you know.

Anyway an aggressive, hot headed, person will always be quick to violence. Now what might set a person like that off?

How about a discussion where you disagree but there is no possible conclusion?

My god is the one true god! Oh no he’s not it’s my god!

Now neither arguer has any evidence to support their conclusion and they will both be quick to tell the other that fact.

Do you think that this might be an acceptable catalyst for violence?

We all know that it is. We have seen it countless times through our history.

Now it is true that the violent people of the world will always find ways to justify their actions, (What are you lookin at?) but if you could stop each violent person from doing violence one time in their life that would be a very measurable positive effect.

That is what I think removing religion would do, it would remove much of the tension and needless conflict between people of opposing faiths. It would not make violent people nice, but it might take away one reason that they might have to cause conflict.

Religion’s positives are easily replaced; moral tales, myths and community do not have to go away because religions do.

In fact churches could still remain as a group of people who agree to get together as their own community for socialization and charity. Let’s face it a good church has a lot to offer, but it need not include a god.

Later

tarav · Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Imagine, there's no heaven

Great topic, Niall. I have given this some thought, but not really enough thought. It has been interesting to read the posts in this thread. At first thought I want to say that most people suck and will find a way to do eachother in one way or the other. But, the people that point out how religion has a unique way of causing problems have a point. With god as dictator and having final say in matters of morality, religion is different from any other catalyst to violence or goodness. Replacing god with good doesn't seem to have the same impact. Discussing what is good and what constitutes good behavior without religion can be an open debate. With religion one can use god or the bible to back their opinion of goodness divinely. It seems to me that we could do away with religion and continue to argue goodness and morality. However, we would do so without any parties feeling that their opinions are absolutely correct because something other than humans said it is so.

Niall001 · Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: Re: Imagine there's no tech

Just a few quick notes...

Irishrosem

Quote:
Why encourage blind acceptance? Why encourage indoctrination? Why encourage faith without knowledge?

Well there are two possible arguments you could make here.

1. It is impossible to raise a socially competent child without indoctinating them into a belief system.

2. Faith and blind acceptance can lead to good outcomes.

Frank

Quote:
How about a discussion where you disagree but there is no possible conclusion?

Maybe you're right. It might act as a catalyst for violence.
But atheism doesn't really offer some sort of alternative to that. Instead of two people arguing about which God is real, they argue about if any god is real.

To be honest, I think of religion as an enzyme. It can speed up conflicts, but it can also slow them down. It can have many different effects, some positive and some negative, some powerful and some weak.

Quote:
Religions positive are easily replaced

Well I'm not entirely convinced that this belief is compatible with the belief that a belief in a God is somehow an especially unique and powerful motivation to carry out certain actions.

If we say, atheists and theists can become suicide bombing terrorists, but theists are more likely because they believe they are carrying out the will of God and they expect some sort of heavenly reward, then how can we say that atheists and theists are both equally likely to become peace-making statesmen?

If Ahmed is more likely than Richard Dawkins to kill innocent people because he believes it to be God's will, then isn't he also more likely to fight against poverty and injustice if he thinks that this is God's will? If he is more likely to bomb buildings because of he believes in a heavenly reward for his action, then surely it follows that he is also more likely to be gentle, humble and helpful if he believes that this is what his God wants?

I think that the likes of Dawkins are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they argue that atheists are just as likely as theists to behave morally, but argue that theists are more likely to behave immorally because of the special motivation that a divine decree gives a person.

I just don't see how both arguments can be true. Either theists are more likely to be upstanding moral citizens and immoral deviants, or atheists and theists are equally likely to be either moral or immoral.

Full of Porn*

http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

Niall001 · Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject: Re: Imagine, there's no heaven

Tarav, sorry I missed you first time round. This stupid terminal ate my last reply. I'll try and make this quick. Apologies if I misquote you, but I 'll try to make this quick.

Quote:
With god as dictator and having final say in matters of morality, religion is different from any other catalyst to violence or goodness. Replacing god with good doesn't seem to have the same impact. Discussing what is good and what constitues good behaviour without religion can be an open debate.

It's a double edged sword. If you say, replacing god with good doesn't seem to have the same impact, then isn't that also the case when it comes to acts of altruism? Wouldn't that mean that theists are always more likely to become people like Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa or Florence Nightingale?

Either way, I don't think it is really the case that discussing what is constitues good behaviour in the absence of relgion is all that different to discussing what constiutes goodness in its presence.

To take an extreme example, NAMBALA. Now I believe that molesting children is wrong, in every sense of the word. Am I any less disgusted by this than any of atheist members of the board? I believe that child molesting is ultimately morally wrong. I believe that it is against God's will. I believe that it would still be wrong if 10, 20 or 50 per cent of the population thought otherwise. So does that mean that Richard Dawkins or David Mils would be more ready to compromise with child molestors? I doubt it.

We've all got our non-negotiables and I'm uneasy with the notion that atheists are somehow less disgusted by acts they consider to be immoral than I am. Indeed, for reasons not apparent to me, I find that notion slightly more disturbing than the idea that religous folk are more prone to violence and the like.

Does a religious fanatic really feel more disgusted by something like child abuse than I do?

I'd like to think otherwise, but I can't walk a mile in another man's shoes, so it may well be the case. I'm just uneasy with the notion.

Full of Porn*

http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

Niall001 · Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: Re: Imagine No Humanity

George, just remembered your earlier reply. Sorry about misunderstanding your comments. I think you're right when you say that this whole area is very speculative. Alas, we can't do experiments when it comes to stuff like this. It's for that reason I'd like if people were a little more modest when speaking on the matter. Thankfully, most people participating in this thread have a fair grasp of how complicated the issue is.

I think you've hit the nail on the head again when you say that we should focus on trying to tackle the more harmful aspects of religion, than trying to eliminate religion whole. I think it's an unfortunate effect of the arguments of the likes of Dawkins is that by talking of religious people as one unified group, he effectively frames the debate in such a way that he pushes moderate and liberal believers into a reluctant alliance with the fanatics and the fundamentalists.

Full of Porn*

http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: Re: Imagine there's no tech

Quote:
Niall
But atheism doesn't really offer some sort of alternative to that. Instead of two people arguing about which God is real, they argue about if any god is real.

Not with other atheists, at least not normally.

Quote:
Niall
Then how can we say that atheists and theists are both equally likely to become peace-making statesmen?

If Ahmed is more likely than Richard Dawkins to kill innocent people because he believes it to be God's will, then isn't he also more likely to fight against poverty and injustice if he thinks that this is God's will? If he is more likely to bomb buildings because of he believes in a heavenly reward for his action, then surely it follows that he is also more likely to be gentle, humble and helpful if he believes that this is what his God wants?

Not necessarily, religion offers a justification for the absurd that negative beliefs do not. But compassion and empathy are normal human emotions existing independently of religion.

A generous person will continue to be generous if religion is involved or not.

I am living proof, I have no religion but I give hundreds to toys for tots every year, I even went to New Orleans to help out after Katrina. I had no motivation do do this from religion but it was more motivation than 99.999% of other Americians.

So while religion can lead to acts of kindness it can, and has, also lead to righteous slaughter all being equally justified in the name of god.

Most other normal human emotions do not lead to righteous mass murder, it can happen but it is not normal and has no justification outside of blind hatred.

Later

Niall001 · Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: Imagine there's no tech

Frank

Quote:
Not with out atheists, at least not normally.

So all you have to do then is convince everybody to agree to be atheists, right? Couldn't we just convince everybody to be Catholic? Jewish? Sunni? Buddhist?

If everybody agreed, then of course we wouldn't have arguments!

Quote:

Relgion offers a justification for the absurd that negative beliefs do not.

A justification, maybe. A cause, I doubt it. The absurd takes many forms both positive and negative, and while I'd agree that religion does not necessarily make somebody act in an extreme fashion (either positive or negative) the argument being put forth here is that if somebody believes in God they have some sort of extra additional motivation to behave in a certain manner.

Besides, racism has always been a ridiculous and absurd thing. Racists often turned to religion, but during the 19th century, they adopted the scientific method and attempted to use it to justify their beliefs. Religion isn't needed. In its absence, those who believe in the absurd simply create new forms of justification.

I'm not saying that an implication of the argument presented is that atheists will not act in altruistic ways (like you did), only that, everything else being equal, they'll be less likely to behave in an extreme altruistic manner when compared to a religious individual.

Full of Porn*

http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

Frank 013 · Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: Re: Imagine there's no tech

Quote:
Niall
So all you have to do then is convince everybody to agree to be atheists, right?

Right!

Quote:
Niall
Couldn't we just convince everybody to be Catholic? Jewish? Sunni? Buddhist?

No, those beliefs are just too silly. ::04

Quote:
Niall
A justification, maybe. A cause, I doubt it.

I think religion can be a cause sometimes especially when the religion orders believers to take certain actions like convert or kill all non believers, which both Christianity and Islam have in their text.

As an example certain religions teach that the practitioners of other faiths are going to hell and not to associate with them, some also teach that homosexuality is a sin and those people will somehow corrupt our family values leading to cultural decay and chaos.

The result of these teachings is bigotry which has led to altered behavior through religious belief and the people who believe this stuff do act on it.

But I agree that normally cause is personal.

Quote:
Niall
The absurd takes many forms both positive and negative, and while I'd agree that religion does not necessarily make somebody act in an extreme fashion (either positive or negative)

I agree that religion does not necessarily make somebody act in an extreme fashion, but I think that it can.

Quote:
Niall
The argument being put forth here is that if somebody believes in God they have some sort of extra additional motivation to behave in a certain manner.

I think this can be true if a religion gives absurd orders, and the level of the believer’s fanaticism is acceptable to allow the absurd behavior.

Quote:
Niall
Besides, racism has always been a ridiculous and absurd thing. Racists often turned to religion, but during the 19th century, they adopted the scientific method and attempted to use it to justify their beliefs. Religion isn't needed. In its absence, those who believe in the absurd simply create new forms of justification.

Very true but shouldn’t we narrow their ability to justify these behaviors when possible? one of the dangers of religion is that they can be so morally malleable, and when religion is used to justify an action people can tend to accept it?

Denying Gays the right to legal union is a good example here. The religious have single-handedly kept a portion of our society from having equal rights in the eyes of the law, over something that is frankly none of their business.

Quote:
Niall
I'm not saying that an implication of the argument presented is that atheists will not act in altruistic ways (like you did), only that, everything else being equal, they'll be less likely to behave in an extreme altruistic manner when compared to a religious individual.

I would say atheists are less likely to act in extreme ways in general. But I also think that the extreme is where the problem lies.

Later

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: Re: Imagine there's no tech

I agree with George that religion being taught by qualified teachers, and this by no means implies priests, imams or rabbis or any other tradition specific representative, is a good thing. Religion is part of our history and NEEDS to be understood. But we need to expose everyone to all versions with an emphasis on none.

I would love to take a comparative religion course. I think my basic mindset would not be changed in any way regarding my atheism, but I would like to learn some more about it all.

Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Niall001 · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:31 am Post subject: Re: Imagine there's no tech

Irish:

Quote:
Who do you mean by “we”?

The human race? Mankind. Society.

Or do you just think that it is everybody for themselves?

Quote:
Or the brainwashing that continues to control many of the adult religious faithful. In fact, Dawkins’ prologue introduced the idea that he wished to let people know that they could be atheist, that it is an acceptable belief system. Indoctrination is most successful in childhood (Dawkins notes it is particularly disgusting that religion preys on vulnerable, childish minds), but religion also encourages the same ignorance among its adults. I personally did not recognize that trait until after I left the church. I agree it is necessary for children to be “indoctrinated” into a rules system. But that indoctrination can come through instruction and socialization; it need not come through religious dogma.

I'm afraid I don't really find that sense of promoting ignorance, but I suppose that's to be expected!

Quote:
I now recognize that you don’t need religion to teach morals, you just teach them. For instance, I would no more tell a child not to lie because god is watching her, than I would tell her there is a boogey man under her bed to keep her from crawling out at night.

Ah yes, but what we do not teach children is as important as what we teach them. You can teach a child that something is right or wrong, and if you only believe that these are historical conventions and modern constructions and not actual absolutes, then do you teach the child that these notions are malleable? Is leaving out certain pieces of information not the same as telling the kid tales of monsters? If we let them believe in Good and Bad as though they were real and not just constructions that exist only in our minds, then does that not have the same effect.

Regardless, I don't think that you need to fool children into believing in a God just to get them to act morally. But I do think it helps to be economical with the truth, and even if you don't believe in a God, well it can be a useful lie, at least in some respects.

Full of Porn*

http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: Re: Imagine there's no tech

Niall:

Quote:
Or do you just think that it is everybody for themselves?

When it really comes down to it, it is. The 'self' becomes groups and not necessarily individuals. There is always faction. Sad, but true. But we should work as much as possible to stop this. You can start by dropping this 'god' crap!

Quote:
I'm afraid I don't really find that sense of promoting ignorance, but I suppose that's to be expected!

Do you deny, then, that this happens? Just because YOU have not experienced this does not preclude it from being something that happens. Just as my experience of people does not speak to ALL those people, no?

There is obviously some form of mind control at work with any system that states that there is some 'being' that is always watching you and is never wrong and that 'you will be judged'.

Quote:
then do you teach the child that these notions are malleable?


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT