From http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a380b67eb6a46.htm, this is an interesting read.

It's a piece by Salman Rushdie, from a collection called "Letters to the Six Billionth World Citizen", published in English by Uitgeverij Podium, Amsterdam, 1999.

---
Imagine no Heaven

Dear little Six Billionth Living Person: As one of the newest members of a notoriously inquisitive species, it probably won't be too long before you start asking the two $64,000 questions with which the other 5,999,999,999 of us have been wrestling for some time: How did we get here? And, now that we are here, how shall we live?

Oddly - as if six billion of us weren't enough to be going on with - it will almost certainly be suggested to you that the answer to the question of origins requires you to believe in the existence of a further, invisible, ineffable Being "somewhere up there", an omnipotent creator whom we poor limited creatures are unable even to perceive, much less to understand. That is, you will be strongly encouraged to imagine a heaven, with at least one god in residence.

This sky god, it's said, made the universe by churning its matter in a giant pot. Or, he danced. Or, he vomited Creation out of himself. Or, he simply called it into being, and lo, it Was. In some of the more interesting creation stories, the single mighty sky god is subdivided into many lesser forces - junior deities, avatars, gigantic metamorphic "ancestors" whose adventures create the landscape, or the whimsical, wanton, meddling, cruel pantheons of the great polytheisms, whose wild doings will convince you that the real engine of creation was lust: for infinite power, for too easily broken human bodies, for clouds of glory. But it's only fair to add that there are also stories which offer the message that the primary creative impulse was, and is, love.

Many of these stories will strike you as extremely beautiful, and therefore seductive. Unfortunately, however, you will not be required to make a purely literary response to them. Only the stories of dead religions can be appreciated for their beauty. Living religions require much more of you. So you will be told that belief in "your" stories, and adherence to the rituals of worship that have grown up around them, must become a vital part of your life in the crowded world. They will be called the heart of your culture, even of your individual identity.

It is possible that they may at some point come to feel inescapable, not in the way that the truth is inescapable, but in the way that a jail is. They may at some point cease to feel like the texts in which human beings have tried to solve a great mystery, and feel, instead, like the pretexts for other properly anointed human beings to order you around. And it's true that human history is full of the public oppression wrought by the charioteers of the gods. In the opinion of religious people, however, the private comfort that religion brings more than compensates for the evil done in its name.

As human knowledge has grown, it has also become plain that every religious story ever told about how we got here is quite simply wrong. This, finally, is what all religions have in common. They didn't get it right. There was no celestial churning, no maker's dance, no vomiting of galaxies, no snake or kangaroo ancestors, no Valhalla, no Olympus, no six-day conjuring trick followed by a day of rest. Wrong, wrong,wrong.

But here's something genuinely odd. The wrongness of the sacred tales hasn't lessened the zeal of the devout in the least. If anything, the sheer out-of-step zaniness of religion leads the religious to insist ever more stridently on the importance of blind faith. As a result of this faith, by the way, it has proved impossible, in many parts of the world, to prevent the human race's numbers from swelling alarmingly. Blame the overcrowded planet at least partly on the misguidedness of the race's spiritual guides. In your own lifetime, you may well witness the arrival of the nine billionth world citizen.

(If too many people are being born as a result, in part, of religious strictures against birth control, then too many people are also dying because religious culture, by refusing to face the facts of human sexuality, also refuses to fight against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.)

There are those who say that the great wars of the new century will once again be wars of religion, jihads and crusades, as they were in the middle ages. I don't believe them, or not in the way they mean it. Take a took at the Muslim world, or rather the Islamist world, to use the word coined to describe Islam's present-day "political arm". The divisions between its great powers (Afghanistan vs lran vs Iraq vs Saudi Arabia vs Syria vs Egypt) are what strike you most forcefully. There's very little resembling a common purpose. Even after the non-Islamic Nato fought a war for the Muslim Kosovan Albanians, the Muslim world was slow in coming forward with much-needed humanitarian aid.

The real wars of religion are the wars religions unleash against ordinary citizens within their "sphere of influence". They are wars of the godly against the largely defenceless - American fundamentalists against pro-choice doctors, Iranian mullahs against their country's Jewish minority, Hindu fundamentalists in Bombay against that city's increasingly fearful Muslims.

The victors in that war must not be the closed-minded, marching into battle with, as ever, God on their side. To choose unbelief is to choose mind over dogma, to trust in our humanity instead of all these dangerous divinities. So, how did we get here? Don't look for the answer in storybooks. Imperfect human knowledge may be a bumpy, pot-holed street, but it's the only road to wisdom worth taking. Virgil, who believed that the apiarist Aristaeus could spon taneously generate new bees from the rotting carcass of a cow, was closer to a truth about origins than all the revered old books.

The ancient wisdoms are modern nonsenses. Live in your own time, use what we know, and as you grow up, perhaps the human race will finally grow up with you, and put aside childish things.

As the song says, "It's easy if you try."

As for mortality, the second great question - how to live? What is right action, and what wrong? - it comes down to your willingness to think for yourself. Only you can decide if you want to be handed down the law by priests, and accept that good and evil are somehow external to ourselves. To my mind religion, even at its most sophisticated, essentially infantilises our ethical selves by setting infallible moral Arbiters and irredeemably immoral Tempters above us: the eternal parents, good and bad, light and dark, of the supernatural realm.

How, then, are we to make ethical choices without a divine rulebook or judge? Is unbelief just the first step on the long slide into the brain death of cultural relativism, according to which many unbearable things - female circumcision, to name just one - can be excused on culturally specific grounds, and the universality of human rights, too, can be ignored? (This last piece of moral unmaking finds supporters in some of the world's most authoritarian regimes, and also, unnervingly, on the editorial page of the Daily Telegraph.)

Well, no, it isn't, but the reasons for saying so aren't clear-cut. Only hard-line ideology is clear-cut. Freedom, which is the word I use for the secular-ethical position, is inevitably fuzzier. Yes, freedom is that space in which contradiction can reign, it is a never-ending debate. It is not in itself the answer to the question of morals, but the conversation about that question. And it is much more than mere relativism, because it is not merely a never-ending talk show, but a place in which choices are made, values defined and defended. Intellectual freedom, in European history, has mostly meant freedom from the restraints of the Church, not the state.

This is the battle Voltaire was fighting, and it's also what all six billion of us could do for ourselves, the revolution in which each of us could play our small, six-billionth part: once and for all we could refuse to allow priests, and the fictions on whose behalf they claim to speak, to be the policemen of our liberties and behaviour. Once and for all we could put the stories back into the books, put the books back on the shelves, and see the world undogmatised and plain.

Imagine there's no heaven, my dear Six Billionth, and at once the sky's the limit.
---

I dont see why fanatics should stop people from hoping that there is something more than what we have here. Not only that but i have seen things and read about stuff that there is no explanation for. I just dont understand why an individual cannot have their own impression when no one has the answers we are looking for. Even if you believe in evolution it does not nullify creation, and that is the problem. There is no way we will see the end of people believing in an afterlife\creation.

Besides religion is just a word, sometimes it veers off into becoming a cult but that is the fingerprint of mankind- people look to dominate, always have and always will. It is a weakness, an insecurity but that is another thing that wont change.

So according to him, freedom is defined by thinking in a cultural and religious vacuum. Good luck with that. Opportunistic materialism will probably define the next century anyway, as it has defined much of this one.

The comments on Free republic just confirm that it is a hopeless blot on the internet. Why not link to the Guardian, where it was originally put online? http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,257810,00.html#article_continue

The comments on Free republic just confirm that it is a hopeless blot on the internet. Why not link to the Guardian, where it was originally put online? http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,257810,00.html#article_continue

Because either way it is meaningless. Or are you living meaningful lives in a meaningless universe? :p

Because either way it is meaningless. Or are you living meaningful lives in a meaningless universe? :p

Because aggressive stupidity upsets my stomach.

Our knowledge of the universe certainly doesn't support the idea of human importance. There is no good reason to suppose we are more important than bacteria. Measured against the scale of the universe, the difference between bacteria and humans is insignificant. But the difference is still very important to us.

Because aggressive stupidity upsets my stomach.

Our knowledge of the universe certainly doesn't support the idea of human importance. There is no good reason to suppose we are more important than bacteria. Measured against the scale of the universe, the difference between bacteria and humans is insignificant. But the difference is still very important to us.

As your opinion is merely a result of your beliefs, I hereby reject it as irrelevant.

Wow, freedom is wonderful.

Only my opinion is relevant. The rest of the world is incidental and merely a means to my ends.

Only my opinion is relevant.

It sure seems that way SAM.

It sure seems that way SAM.

Irrelevant.

/yay

I'd be open to evidence that shows that humans are something other than just another life form on just another planet in just another solar system located in what may very well be a backwards and unfashionable neighborhood in the Milky Way galaxie.

I'd be open to evidence that shows that humans are something other than just another life form on just another planet in just another solar system located in what may very well be a backwards and unfashionable neighborhood in the Milky Way galaxie.

Thats your problem. :shrug:

Because aggressive stupidity upsets my stomach.

Our knowledge of the universe certainly doesn't support the idea of human importance. There is no good reason to suppose we are more important than bacteria. Measured against the scale of the universe, the difference between bacteria and humans is insignificant. But the difference is still very important to us.

Bacteria dont think or at least they certainly dont make significant decisions. Overall we offer or perhaps were given so much more than bacteria yet from a purely scientific standpoint we are less important than bacteria. Perhaps bacteria exist for humans because we need bacteria - IF...if creation is correct then we are talking about some really intelligent force. That is a good example because you cannot see things in black and white which is what science does but there are curves and detours which linear thinking does not account for.

Irrelevant.

/yay

:(

Our knowledge is great, but far from complet.
We do not know how the univers came to be or how life started out on our planet.
We are good at finding answers, but we still do not know what happens after we die.
One thing we would try to do to make this world a better place to live on is:
Instead of beliveing that we will pay for our sins after we die - how about just start respecting and accepting one another like the adults we are?

So according to him, freedom is defined by thinking in a cultural and religious vacuum. ? You read the strangest things into the writings of the atheistic.

Cultural vacuum ? A novelist ?

So according to him, freedom is defined by thinking in a cultural and religious vacuum.

He said nothing about a cultural vacuum.

You can't dismiss it that easily, I'm afraid.

So according to him, freedom is defined by thinking in a cultural and religious vacuum.

On the contrary. Freedom is defined by not thinking as we are told to think by those steeped in religious dogma and influence.

Imagine there is no heaven is about being free to think for one's self. Not to think as others have told you to think because it is the only way to get into heaven. Freedom is about thinking for yourself.

Tell me Sam, do you need your religion to tell you what is right and wrong?

On the contrary. Freedom is defined by not thinking as we are told to think by those steeped in religious dogma and influence.

Imagine there is no heaven is about being free to think for one's self. Not to think as others have told you to think because it is the only way to get into heaven. Freedom is about thinking for yourself.

Tell me Sam, do you need your religion to tell you what is right and wrong?

Thinking for oneself is a strange concept. It assumes that there is no input from an external source, that parents and teachers are irrelevant, that social norms and morality have no impact on how a person thinks and that role models are not required. It presumes essentially that every person is capable of being raised in a vacuum and arriving at the same conclusion as the other. Since none of us have been raised in any such environement where parents or society or role models, or even, according to science, the language we speak has no effect, how do you assume that anyone is thinking for themselves?

According to me, without religion, there is no right or wrong, because morality is a religious construct. Otherwise, there is no reason to think that murder or rape or theft is "wrong". Absolutely none.

? You read the strangest things into the writings of the atheistic.

Cultural vacuum ? A novelist ?

Just another man who is saying his way is better for everyone because it suits him. Nothing new in that.

People tend to think subjectively about such things.

It's fascinating to see people worship a mountain God symbolized by an old tree that has eaked out its existence on a mountain side. How about walking through a 1000 year old Temple overlooking a tea-garden and lake?

Would the Athenians had been as great if there were no Athena*?

Religions are a part of culture. Not all of it. But a part.

I think religion is great if it's not monotheistic intolerant bullshit hell bent on converting everyone over to it's megalomaniac views of reality.

Oh, I also agree, life only has the meaning we give it.

Michael


* All of the greatest Greek Philosophers understood there was no real Athena Goddess. But they also accepted that the small minded people (think contemporary fundamental Xian or Scientologist or etc...[you know who you are]) needed Athena to give meaning to their lives. I've accepted that lots of people are like this. It's probably genetic. There's an interesting book about the Self-Help industry. Next to religion its small but a billion dollar enterprise nonetheless - all to give people meaning.

Just another man who is saying his way is better for everyone because it suits him. Nothing new in that. So first he's arguing in a cultural vacuum, now he's arguing for "his (presumably cultural) way" - which I don't really see in there, SAM. Rejecting one thing is not specifying something else in particular, is it ?

And it definitely isn't "because it suits him". He seems to be recommending whatever most likely suits the other, with his own experience as only one factor in the estimation.

And if it were, there's still the matter of right and wrong - - - or are all opinions created equal in the face of the world ?

You seem to be seeing what you expect for some reason, rather than what's there.

Thinking for oneself is a strange concept. It assumes that there is no input from an external source, that parents and teachers are irrelevant, that social norms and morality have no impact on how a person thinks and that role models are not required. It presumes essentially that every person is capable of being raised in a vacuum and arriving at the same conclusion as the other. Since none of us have been raised in any such environement where parents or society or role models, or even, according to science, the language we speak has no effect, how do you assume that anyone is thinking for themselves?

Do you think a person needs to be told that hitting or killing another person is wrong? I'll give you an example. A week ago, my 2 year old got into an argument with his 10 month old brother over a toy. Before I could step in to stop the argument, he smacked his brother across the head with the toy. His little brother promptly burst into tears and without any prompting, he immediately hugged his brother and said "so sowwy". We did not even have the chance to say it is wrong to hit. He knew when his brother started to cry that he had hurt him and as I bent down to pick up the baby, he said, "Wuke hurt 'ames" (he has issues pronouncing L and J at the moment). He has never hit his brother since then. We had never had the opportunity to say he should never hit or hurt anyone, because he has never showed any violent tendencies in the past. It was an impulsive lashing out on his part and he immediately knew it was wrong. Ergo, he thought for himself and realised he had done something wrong.

Of course our environment and those who exist in it are important. But we also have the propensity and the ability to think for ourselves in determining what is wrong and what is right. Do you honestly think that religion is the one vessel to instill moral values upon society because we are simply unable to determine that causing harm to others is wrong?

I guess at the end of the day, do you think morality is solely based on our understanding and belief in God? I personally do not think so. I was raised in a Catholic household and became an atheist at a very young age. If I were to base my moral values on what I have been taught during my Catholic childhood, I would view homosexuality as being wrong and a 'sin', I would not be for freedom of choice and I would assume that to believe differently would mean I would be going to hell. Now, do you honestly think we are being moral if we only act in accordance to religious dogma and supposed morality because we don't want to go to hell? Or are we merely being hypocritical and adhering to such religious restrictions to ensure our own wellbeing?

According to me, without religion, there is no right or wrong, because morality is a religious construct. Otherwise, there is no reason to think that murder or rape or theft is "wrong". Absolutely none.
You view the concept of imagining there is no heaven and therefore, no God, in extreme terms. So because someone is an atheist, they have no self control and would therefore think it is not wrong to kill someone or steal? I could counter that and say that the only thing keeping a religious or God believing and fearing individual from killing or stealing is the belief that they will go to hell if they do. Now, as an atheist, I do not think it is acceptable to kill or steal. Does my lacking in religious morality mean that I am somehow different to other atheist? Are all atheists murdering and thieving scum? I doubt it. Compare an atheist who deems it unacceptable to murder or steal because it is wrong to do so as it would cause harm to another individual, to a God fearing individual who does not kill or steal solely because they do not want to go to hell. Which do you view as lacking in moral fibre? The individual who will not kill or steal because they know it would cause harm to another or the individual who simply does not do it because they do not want to spend an eternity in hell?

Religion is not what tells you it is wrong to kill, rape or steal. If it is then there is something seriously wrong with you, because that would mean the only restriction in your capacity for harm upon others is your fear of hell.

Imagine there is no heaven means to not restrict one's morality and our capability for good in religious doctrine. It basically means that we, as a species, are capable of good without being selfish in thinking we do good we go to heaven. Don't you see how restrictive and selfish that is? If we were to base our morality on religion, then homosexuals would have no rights, abortion and birth control would be banned, denying women the right over their own body. Imagining there is no heaven means we relieve ourselves of the sometimes immoral religious doctrine and think for ourselves as to what is good and what is bad.

According to me, without religion, there is no right or wrong, because morality is a religious construct. Otherwise, there is no reason to think that murder or rape or theft is "wrong". Absolutely none.Then according to me - YOU should remain religious!:p

According to me, without religion, there is no right or wrong, because morality is a religious construct. Otherwise, there is no reason to think that murder or rape or theft is "wrong". Absolutely none. I missed that first time through.

What a bizarre notion. I've sometimes thought that the prime evil of theistic religion is that it takes the credit for all virtue, all morality, all the good in the human world. This kind of evidence of that is damn persuasive.

SAM, there are and have always been many people who have no religion, who nevertheless know right from wrong according to their lights and neighbors and upbringing. The facts of the world are not going to arrange themselves "according to you". Even apes know right from wrong in their sense - various trials have shown them sacrificing food and other benefits for revenge, for example, and turning down benefits of an exchange deemed by them unfair.

I missed that first time through.

What a bizarre notion. I've sometimes thought that the prime evil of theistic religion is that it takes the credit for all virtue, all morality, all the good in the human world. This kind of evidence of that is damn persuasive.

SAM, there are and have always been many people who have no religion, who nevertheless know right from wrong according to their lights and neighbors and upbringing. The facts of the world are not going to arrange themselves "according to you". Even apes know right from wrong in their sense - various trials have shown them sacrificing food and other benefits for revenge, for example, and turning down benefits of an exchange deemed by them unfair.

I have yet to see a society that has arisen without the benefit of morals derived from religion. Or probably, one that has survived without it, if the Carvakas are any indication. Historically such experiments have devolved into alternate dogmas that have been so horrific, that people have turned to religion again to escape them.

Then according to me - YOU should remain religious!:p

You may laugh it off, but that is how some people consign whole countries to war, famine and desolation because they are too busy looking out for number one.

According to me, without religion, there is no right or wrong, because morality is a religious construct. Otherwise, there is no reason to think that murder or rape or theft is "wrong". Absolutely none.

C`mon now SAM. Human nature has its own language. Morality is a verb. Nature does not need religion for survival bias it is necessarily self sustaining.

Its plain to see that RELIGIOUS morality causes lots of "WRONG" in the world. Past and present.

I have yet to see a society that has arisen without the benefit of morals derived from religion.

That axe swings both ways. Ask the thousands of Aztec sacrifices if they enjoyed their experience? Religions causes bloodshed, elitism, racism, division and fantastic pretexts for war and invasions. :(

C`mon now SAM. Human nature has its own language. Morality is a verb. Nature does not need religion for survival bias it is necessarily self sustaining.

Its plain to see that RELIGIOUS morality causes lots of "WRONG" in the world. Past and present.

And becoming secular has made countries less likely to

-cause world wars
-occupy nations
-cause collateral damages
-starve third world countries and destroy their economies
-support dictators and genocidal regimes
-make and use weapons of mass destruction

Is that right?

What do you think of this?

The Khmer Rouge followed a harsh brand of communism, killing nearly two million people in their bid to return Cambodia to Year Zero. Now they have a new faith: evangelical Christianity.

Hundreds of former fighters have been baptised in the past year. The Khmer Rouge's mountain stronghold, the town of Pailin in south-west Cambodia, has four churches, all with pastors and growing congregations. At least 2,000 of those who followed Pol Pot, the guerrillas' former leader who died six years ago, now worship Jesus.

Many new converts were involved in the bloody battles, massacres and forced labour programmes that led to the Killing Fields. Between 1975 and 1979 the Khmer Rouge sought to eradicate religion, ripping down the country's biggest cathedral, killing Muslim clerics and turning Buddhist temples into pigsties.

According to one pastor, 70 per cent of the converts in Pailin are Khmer Rouge. For many, it offers a hope of salvation. 'When I was a soldier I did bad things. I don't know how many we killed. We were following orders and thought it was the right thing to do,' said Thao Tanh, 52. 'I read the Bible and I know it will free me from the weight of the sins I have committed.'

And becoming secular has made countries less likely to

-cause world wars
-occupy nations
-cause collateral damages
-starve third world countries and destroy their economies
-support dictators and genocidal regimes
-make and use weapons of mass destruction

Is that right?

Which secular countries are guilty of the above?

What do you think of this?

“
The Khmer Rouge followed a harsh brand of communism, killing nearly two million people in their bid to return Cambodia to Year Zero. Now they have a new faith: evangelical Christianity.

Hundreds of former fighters have been baptised in the past year. The Khmer Rouge's mountain stronghold, the town of Pailin in south-west Cambodia, has four churches, all with pastors and growing congregations. At least 2,000 of those who followed Pol Pot, the guerrillas' former leader who died six years ago, now worship Jesus.

Many new converts were involved in the bloody battles, massacres and forced labour programmes that led to the Killing Fields. Between 1975 and 1979 the Khmer Rouge sought to eradicate religion, ripping down the country's biggest cathedral, killing Muslim clerics and turning Buddhist temples into pigsties.

According to one pastor, 70 per cent of the converts in Pailin are Khmer Rouge. For many, it offers a hope of salvation. 'When I was a soldier I did bad things. I don't know how many we killed. We were following orders and thought it was the right thing to do,' said Thao Tanh, 52. 'I read the Bible and I know it will free me from the weight of the sins I have committed.'

The less suffering the better, whatever it takes. Unfortunately I cant think of many more examples.

Which secular countries are guilty of the above?

Does G8 ring a bell? Or rather, which one does not?



The less suffering the better, whatever it takes. Unfortunately I cant think of many more examples.


Look at all societies which are going from secular to right wing, why do you think that is?

Does G8 ring a bell? Or rather, which one does not?

Mmmm. Yep, secular by definition. As to your points, agreed.

Look at all societies which are going from secular to right wing, why do you think that is?

You mean the US? Thats just sad. You mean Islam? That is sad too. :(

SAM:

Thinking for oneself is a strange concept. It assumes that there is no input from an external source, that parents and teachers are irrelevant, that social norms and morality have no impact on how a person thinks and that role models are not required.

No. It means weighing up for yourself things that you are told by your parents, your teachers, your priests etc.

Most religions prohibit this kind of thing. You're supposed to "have faith" in the truth of what your Imam or Priest tells you, and not to question. You're supposed to obey God and submit, and not to question.

According to me, without religion, there is no right or wrong, because morality is a religious construct. Otherwise, there is no reason to think that murder or rape or theft is "wrong". Absolutely none.

Let me put an old argument to you. This one is from Plato.

Plato asked: Are things wrong because God says so, or does God say they are wrong because they are wrong?

If things are only wrong because God says so, then I assume you would agree that God could just as easily have decreed that murder is good, rape and lying are right, and that would have been just fine. But if, on the other hand, God says things are wrong because they are wrong, then God is appealing to some moral standard that exists independently. In that case, morality is not a religious construct; it doesn't rely on religion at all.

Your thoughts?

SAM:

No. It means weighing up for yourself things that you are told by your parents, your teachers, your priests etc.

Most religions prohibit this kind of thing. You're supposed to "have faith" in the truth of what your Imam or Priest tells you, and not to question. You're supposed to obey God and submit, and not to question.

Are you saying religious people are less rebellious by nature? That they question/explore nothing?

Has this been your observation/experience of religious people?



Let me put an old argument to you. This one is from Plato.

Plato asked: Are things wrong because God says so, or does God say they are wrong because they are wrong?

If things are only wrong because God says so, then I assume you would agree that God could just as easily have decreed that murder is good, rape and lying are right, and that would have been just fine. But if, on the other hand, God says things are wrong because they are wrong, then God is appealing to some moral standard that exists independently. In that case, morality is not a religious construct; it doesn't rely on religion at all.

In that case, there is no reason why there cannot be a successful society without religion. Is there?:)

Plato asked: Are things wrong because God says so, or does God say they are wrong because they are wrong?

If things are only wrong because God says so, then I assume you would agree that God could just as easily have decreed that murder is good, rape and lying are right, and that would have been just fine.

as elaborated on by numerous theistic commentaries on this reference, the fact that they are not decreed as openly permissible seems to uncannily suggest that god has good intelligence. (ie plato is seen as promoting theistic knowledge as opposed to challenging it, by suggesting that morality is contingent on god, the personification of absolute "goodness")

Are you saying religious people are less rebellious by nature? That they question/explore nothing?

Has this been your observation/experience of religious people?


When it comes to their religious belief, yes.

In that case, there is no reason why there cannot be a successful society without religion. Is there?
I personally think society could flourish without religion.:)

When it comes to their religious belief, yes.

I think without religion, ennui and suicide would rule society


I personally think society could flourish without religion.:)

See above.

I think without religion, ennui and suicide would rule society



See above.

Why do you think that? Do you think atheists are more susceptible to feeling bored, depressed and suicidal, when compared to theists? Do you really view the human species as being so weak?

I'll ask you a question, do you think you could survive without believing in God? Do you think you are mentally strong enough to survive without believing in a deity?

Why do you think that? Do you think atheists are more susceptible to feeling bored, depressed and suicidal, when compared to theists? Do you really view the human species as being so weak?

I'll ask you a question, do you think you could survive without believing in God? Do you think you are mentally strong enough to survive without believing in a deity?

Can you even imagine a society without religion? I cannot.

Apart from the fact that atheists do tend to be more suicidal, atheism itself has nothing to offer the individual except individuality. Thats like saying, you're unique, just like everybody else.

I think religion is the glue that creates and binds communities. Without religion, there would be a breakdown, at both social and family levels, and finally at the individual level. It speaks volumes to me that in a society like India, where every language, community, ethnicity and religion has survived in some form or the other, the cult of the Carvakas completely died out. And this in a society where they were permitted a voice.

Can you even imagine a society without religion? I cannot.


I can. Very easily actually. And frankly, it simply cannot be any worse than the society we currently have, religion and all.

Apart from the fact that atheists do tend to be more suicidal, atheism itself has nothing to offer the individual except individuality.
So atheists tend to be more suicidal? How so? I guess I should start getting the noose ready for my own suicide.

Why do you assume that atheism offers nothing for the individual except individuality? On the contrary Sam, atheism offers people the ability to think behind their religious doctrine. It allows people to think for themselves without having religious doctrines acting like the big daddy in the sky. It allows people to show their humanity. Religion on the other hand forces people into some form of cohesion out of fear that if one does not comply, one goes to hell. Atheism allows people to see that causing harm to another is bad because it causes harm to another. Theism, on the contrary, decrees that to harm another is to displease God, so out of that selfish desire to not go to hell, theist's will obey out of fear of hell.

It surprises me to think that you could view atheists as being devoid of our very humanity because we simply do not believe in 'God'. Do you think the only reason you are a good person is because you believe in God? Do you think you would be incapable of being 'good' if you were an atheist?

We are all individuals. The difference between a theist and a theist will not cause pain or harm to another because God told them it is wrong, while an atheist has the capacity to determine for themselves that harming another person is wrong because it causes them pain.

I think religion is the glue that creates and binds communities. Without religion, there would be a breakdown, at both social and family levels, and finally at the individual level.
Look how well we have gone so far with religion in society? Look how many wars have been fought in the name of God. Look how many people have died in the name of their religion. You make this statement without looking at how we have totally failed as a society and, for lack of a better term, as humanity, with religious doctrines guiding our very laws and society. Look at how religion has denied people rights in society and within the family structure. Consider how individuals are sometimes restricted by religious doctrines. No Sam, religion does not hold our society together, nor does it bind us as a community. On the contrary, religion is one of the constructs that has divided society, individual communities and families around the world.

SAM:

Are you saying religious people are less rebellious by nature? That they question/explore nothing?

Not in all things. What I am saying is that most religions actively discourage (even forbid) the questioning of their own tenets. And I must say that Islam appears to me to be one of the most rigid religions in that.

Has this been your observation/experience of religious people?

I see many people who are quite happy to follow the dictates of their religious leaders blindly.

In that case, there is no reason why there cannot be a successful society without religion. Is there?:)

Right. There's no reason to suspect a society won't be successful without religion.

I think without religion, ennui and suicide would rule society

Why? Without the conviction that death means a fast track to heavenly paradise, people might actually value life (their own, and others') more.

Apart from the fact that atheists do tend to be more suicidal, atheism itself has nothing to offer the individual except individuality.

Since atheism is in principle a negative - a lack of a belief - it doesn't offer anything, apart from freedom to examine the world as it really is.

I think religion is the glue that creates and binds communities.

It provides an excuse for those who feel communal to gather in one place. But so do many other kinds of shared interests.

Without religion, there would be a breakdown, at both social and family levels, and finally at the individual level.

Many western nations are effectively secular these days. Do you think Australia, Canada, England, France and Germany are societies that are breaking down?

perspective, dear james
a case could possibly be made

never mind that
more importantly i think i can make the case that sam should have her borderline fanaticism spanked out of her

/hard

James:

SAM:
Not in all things. What I am saying is that most religions actively discourage (even forbid) the questioning of their own tenets. And I must say that Islam appears to me to be one of the most rigid religions in that.



I think you will find it is people who do that, not religions. This is as true for Islam (consider the difference between Islamic scholars of the first centuries years, who travelled the world and added to their knowledge to those that came along later and clamped down on it) as it is for any other religion I have explored.

I see many people who are quite happy to follow the dictates of their religious leaders blindly.

See the Milgram experiment. Thats a human failing not a prerogative of religion.




Right. There's no reason to suspect a society won't be successful without religion.

Except the lack of them

Why? Without the conviction that death means a fast track to heavenly paradise, people might actually value life (their own, and others') more.



Or, far more likely, value themselves above others.


Since atheism is in principle a negative - a lack of a belief - it doesn't offer anything, apart from freedom to examine the world as it really is.


You don't search for something that does not exist. Atheism is an existential failure.

It provides an excuse for those who feel communal to gather in one place. But so do many other kinds of shared interests.


Thats a very shortsighted view of what religion is, its not a club.

Many western nations are effectively secular these days. Do you think Australia, Canada, England, France and Germany are societies that are breaking down?

Yes, don't you see it?

------------------
bells:

I can. Very easily actually. And frankly, it simply cannot be any worse than the society we currently have, religion and all.

I would not call what you have in your society as religion, more as a desire for it.


So atheists tend to be more suicidal? How so? I guess I should start getting the noose ready for my own suicide.

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html


Why do you assume that atheism offers nothing for the individual except individuality? On the contrary Sam, atheism offers people the ability to think behind their religious doctrine. It allows people to think for themselves without having religious doctrines acting like the big daddy in the sky. It allows people to show their humanity. Religion on the other hand forces people into some form of cohesion out of fear that if one does not comply, one goes to hell. Atheism allows people to see that causing harm to another is bad because it causes harm to another. Theism, on the contrary, decrees that to harm another is to displease God, so out of that selfish desire to not go to hell, theist's will obey out of fear of hell.


I disagree

It surprises me to think that you could view atheists as being devoid of our very humanity because we simply do not believe in 'God'. Do you think the only reason you are a good person is because you believe in God? Do you think you would be incapable of being 'good' if you were an atheist?

We haven't reached a stage where religious teachings have been obliterated from social mores yet. But as atheism replaces religion in society, you will find greater amorality, and less distinction between right and wrong.

We are all individuals. The difference between a theist and a theist will not cause pain or harm to another because God told them it is wrong, while an atheist has the capacity to determine for themselves that harming another person is wrong because it causes them pain.

Actually an atheist has no reason not to cause harm because he knows its every man for himself.


Look how well we have gone so far with religion in society? Look how many wars have been fought in the name of God. Look how many people have died in the name of their religion. You make this statement without looking at how we have totally failed as a society and, for lack of a better term, as humanity, with religious doctrines guiding our very laws and society. Look at how religion has denied people rights in society and within the family structure. Consider how individuals are sometimes restricted by religious doctrines. No Sam, religion does not hold our society together, nor does it bind us as a community. On the contrary, religion is one of the constructs that has divided society, individual communities and families around the world.


I have lived in both moderate, extremist and irreligious societies and while I value education as a tool for betterment, I find that lack of religion is accompanied very often by a lack of social cohesiveness, poor family relations and superficial interpersonal relations. The degree to which people simply do not care is astonishing. Many of these societies are based on post-colonial wealth or wealth accumulated through unfair trade practices at the expense of several third world economies and have absorbed values of entitlement which they are unwilling to sacrifice, even if it means other people will suffer for it.


Unfortunately, now many of the exploited economies are embracing the same values, perhaps in an effort to compete and survive; but at the present rate of growth of indifference to suffering, unless there are massive changes in how people view each other, there is unlikely to be much positive change. In this kind of atmosphere, less religion equals more indifference and social collapse.

I think you will find it is people who do that, not religions. -
- - -
See the Milgram experiment. Thats a human failing not a prerogative of religion. The fact that religions take advantage of human failings, use them to solidify their power and control, and even amplify them for the benefit of the religion, is not an exoneration of religions.

You don't search for something that does not exist. Atheism is an existential failure. Even deeply religious, spiritually aware atheism ?
We haven't reached a stage where religious teachings have been obliterated from social mores yet. But as atheism replaces religion in society, you will find greater amorality, and less distinction between right and wrong. Again the false dichotomy, atheism vs religion. Why is that insistence so important ?

And how is the cooption of all right and wrong, all distinctions of morality, by theocrats and their ilk, to their advantage and backed by coercion, a desireable foundation of social mores?
I have lived in both moderate, extremist and irreligious societies and while I value education as a tool for betterment, I find that lack of religion is accompanied very often by a lack of social cohesiveness, poor family relations and superficial interpersonal relations. The degree to which people simply do not care is astonishing. And when bad aspects common to religion - dominated societies are observed, they are "personal", just universal human nature.

The US is the most religious of the major Western industrial nations. Would you say it is the most caring, the most socially cohesive, the one with the deepest interpersonal relations and the strongest families ?

I would not call what you have in your society as religion, more as a desire for it.

I disagree. I think there is a stronger desire to move away from religious influence when one considers the discrimination and the division religion has caused in society in the past and in the present.

http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

Did you actually read the study? There were a few limitations. For example, the subjects with religious affiliations were found to be older, since it was discovered that the religiously affiliated subjects had tended to find religion a bit later in life, compared to the atheists. Those with religious affiliations were also found to have a higher incidence of being married and having children, when compared to those who had no religious affiliations. And then we have the following:

For example, it did not assess religious upbringing, religious practice, or the level of personal devotion. Therefore, it is possible that depressed patients who stated that they were atheists or had no religion had abandoned religion as a consequence of depression or hopelessness.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/161/12/2303


As for the link you provided, you will excuse me if I do not take it seriously when it starts to discuss the fact that euthanasia is widely accepted in "atheist" societies, as though it were somehow showing that non-religious societies simply do not care or consider suicide to be a "hallmark" of society.

It is important to keep in mind that atheism and agnosticism have no inherent proscription against suicide, so higher rates of suicide among agnostics and atheists should in no way be considered a failure of these belief systems. Indeed, compassionate tolerance for suicide and euthenasia are widely regarded as hallmarks of many secular societies.
http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

Talk about blowing everything out of proportion. No offense, but that is a complete crock!

I disagree
Of course you do.

We haven't reached a stage where religious teachings have been obliterated from social mores yet. But as atheism replaces religion in society, you will find greater amorality, and less distinction between right and wrong.
The US has a severe born again Christian as its leader who has on at least one occasion, stated that God had advised him of what to do. Would you say Bush is right in his war on terror? Or are the more atheist societies who refused to join in the war, correct?

Do you think countries like Iran are correct in how they treat homosexuals, for example? Or are they wrong? Could it possibly be that countries where religion has been moved to the private sphere have got it a bit more correct in regards to people who happen to be homosexual?

Actually an atheist has no reason not to cause harm because he knows its every man for himself.

I disagree. If I were to follow your reasoning, then I would have no reason to not go out of my house and slaughter my neighbours when they use their lawnmower just when my baby has fallen asleep, leaving me with a screaming, tired child. If society were to follow your reasoning, then all atheists would be our right now killing and harming everyone who happened to disrupt their lives.

I have lived in both moderate, extremist and irreligious societies and while I value education as a tool for betterment, I find that lack of religion is accompanied very often by a lack of social cohesiveness, poor family relations and superficial interpersonal relations.
My personal experiences differ greatly to yours. I have found that strictly religious societies and family groups result in dissention and divisions within the community and family group. I have my own family as a prime example of that.

The degree to which people simply do not care is astonishing. Many of these societies are based on post-colonial wealth or wealth accumulated through unfair trade practices at the expense of several third world economies and have absorbed values of entitlement which they are unwilling to sacrifice, even if it means other people will suffer for it.
Do you think the treatment of third world countries is solely the result of atheistic tendencies? Do you think Isreal is a country based in atheist dogma, leading them to cause harm to the Palestinians? Do you think the problems in Sudan at the present time and in the recent past is a direct result of atheism?

Do you think the Catholic Church, as one example, is caring when they deny and threaten third world countries and NGO's with the removal of all aid if they dare teach safe sex methods or attempt to distribute condoms? Do you think all the past colonial invaders were atheists? I doubt the Spaniards would have considered themselves atheists or lacking in religious beliefs when they conquered South America, committing revolting atrocities in the process.

Unfortunately, now many of the exploited economies are embracing the same values, perhaps in an effort to compete and survive; but at the present rate of growth of indifference to suffering, unless there are massive changes in how people view each other, there is unlikely to be much positive change. In this kind of atmosphere, less religion equals more indifference and social collapse.
And look at the countries and societies that have adopted 'more religion' and you tell me whether they can be considered to be more cohesive. After all, one could say that the problems in Iran were caused by non-religious entities interfering and attempting to install their own version of 'democracy'. But surely the religious Government that took over would not have gotten it so wrong. I doubt any sane individual would consider Iran, being the theocracy that it is, to be "good".

But then again, I am an atheist and I am not supposed to care about anything else, other than myself. I will try to convince myself that countries like Iran have great human rights records.

So according to him, freedom is defined by thinking in a cultural and religious vacuum. Good luck with that. Opportunistic materialism will probably define the next century anyway, as it has defined much of this one.

As opposed to this?
http://www.bibleprobe.com/stoning.jpg

Yeah, I'll go with the SUV over crack-pot superstitions.
Though to be honest, I find the the idea of a mob hurling stones at a screaming, pleading, begging woman's head in heated blood lust, cheering as each rock opens her pitiable, tear-streaked face before she slumps, comatose and dying, a little bit... exciting. To believe so absolutely in some intolerant screed that I somehow have the right to take life.... Man, that'd be sweet, huh?

According to me, without religion, there is no right or wrong, because morality is a religious construct. Otherwise, there is no reason to think that murder or rape or theft is "wrong". Absolutely none.

Not just for it being wrong in and of itself?

Not even - in extremis - for reasons of Darwinian tradeoffs?

Not just for it being wrong in and of itself?

Not even - in extremis - for reasons of Darwinian tradeoffs?

Rape's adaptive.

As opposed to this?
http://www.bibleprobe.com/stoning.jpg

Yeah, I'll go with the SUV over crack-pot superstitions.
Though to be honest, I find the the idea of a mob hurling stones at a screaming, pleading, begging woman's head in heated blood lust, cheering as each rock opens her pitiable, tear-streaked face before she slumps, comatose and dying, a little bit... exciting. To believe so absolutely in some intolerant screed that I somehow have the right to take life.... Man, that'd be sweet, huh?

Hmmmm.. As an atheist, I consider that poor woman's fate to be appalling and disgusting. But if I were a theist in that picture, I would be cheering her fate. Somethings a bit wrong there.. As an atheist, I am supposed to not care about anyone else other than myself..:rolleyes:

Now, which society would I prefer to live in? An atheist society where doing something like that to another individual would be a crime? Or living in a society where such treatment is legally and religiously sanctioned? Decisions decisions..

Bells:

In case you haven't noticed, Sam is not arguing atheism's/religion's affect when employed through government; she's discussing how religion plays a role in the family life, and at the individual level. You're repeating, time and again, that certain countries with religious emblems or divine leaderships commit atrocities. Well, that's fine, but it's irrelevant as far as the topic goes. If you truly want to trot down that road, I can gladly refer you to atheist regimes (some in our lifetime!) that left tens (if not hundreds) of millions of carcasses in their trail.

After all, one could say that the problems in Iran were caused by non-religious entities interfering and attempting to install their own version of 'democracy'. But surely the religious Government that took over would not have gotten it so wrong. I doubt any sane individual would consider Iran, being the theocracy that it is, to be "good".

I guess there's a lot of insane people out there, then. Iran's theocracy is, for the most part, fantastic. Yes, their rigid policies toward homosexuals should be altered (as you mentioned), and their system of power is "sketchy", to say the least. However, beyond these issues, what the theocracy has done to empower the Iranians to the position they're in today will not soon be forgotten. Iran's theocracy is marvelous, and it isn't for an atheist living thousands of miles away to decide how certain religious people should have their country run.

Because either way it is meaningless. Or are you living meaningful lives in a meaningless universe? :p

Some of us give meaning to our lives witout having to look outside ourselves.

James:



I think you will find it is people who do that, not religions. This is as true for Islam (consider the difference between Islamic scholars of the first centuries years, who travelled the world and added to their knowledge to those that came along later and clamped down on it) as it is for any other religion I have explored.


See the Milgram experiment. Thats a human failing not a prerogative of religion.





Except the lack of them


Or, far more likely, value themselves above others.



You don't search for something that does not exist. Atheism is an existential failure.


Thats a very shortsighted view of what religion is, its not a club.



Yes, don't you see it?

------------------
bells:



I would not call what you have in your society as religion, more as a desire for it.


http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html



I disagree


We haven't reached a stage where religious teachings have been obliterated from social mores yet. But as atheism replaces religion in society, you will find greater amorality, and less distinction between right and wrong.


Actually an atheist has no reason not to cause harm because he knows its every man for himself.



I have lived in both moderate, extremist and irreligious societies and while I value education as a tool for betterment, I find that lack of religion is accompanied very often by a lack of social cohesiveness, poor family relations and superficial interpersonal relations. The degree to which people simply do not care is astonishing. Many of these societies are based on post-colonial wealth or wealth accumulated through unfair trade practices at the expense of several third world economies and have absorbed values of entitlement which they are unwilling to sacrifice, even if it means other people will suffer for it.


Unfortunately, now many of the exploited economies are embracing the same values, perhaps in an effort to compete and survive; but at the present rate of growth of indifference to suffering, unless there are massive changes in how people view each other, there is unlikely to be much positive change. In this kind of atmosphere, less religion equals more indifference and social collapse.


I have neither the energy nor the inclintion to deal with all our points but virtually every one is wrong. European countries are not in decline. What gave you that idea.

You assume that ,as an atheist, I give myself leave to do anything I please. That is definitely wrong. Morality comes from society; it does not just come from adhering to a religion. That is typical of the religious who believe they occupy the moral high ground. They delude themselves into thinking they know what god wants for us. What stupidity. All religions love to remind us of what will happen if you do not stick by a code which they lay down. They frighten kids by talking of the consequences of offending god, and so on. and so on.

Belief is belief. an opinion and nothing more and that is what religion is. . God has yet to reveal himself in a way that any rational person would understand.
How can anyone who believes god create us find it impossible to understand that some of us choose reason, a faculty that a putative god has given us. We are expected to put it on one side when it comes to reading the "holy" books.

Religion today is no more than a more sophisticated version of the superstition that started with our early ancestors.


PS I find it interesting that you quote Stanley Millgrams' experiment. It showed that human beings are ready to surrender their autonomy to someone they believe to be in authority. Isn't that what the faithful do when it comes to god and his so-called earthly representatives. Or do you interpret Millgram differently fron the accepted understanding of what his experimeny showed ?

Bells:

In case you haven't noticed, Sam is not arguing atheism's/religion's affect when employed through government; she's discussing how religion plays a role in the family life, and at the individual level. You're repeating, time and again, that certain countries with religious emblems or divine leaderships commit atrocities. Well, that's fine, but it's irrelevant as far as the topic goes. If you truly want to trot down that road, I can gladly refer you to atheist regimes (some in our lifetime!) that left tens (if not hundreds) of millions of carcasses in their trail.


Indeed. Lets look at the positive effects religion has played in some families, shall we? I mean, look how positive religion has been in this girl's life. (http://www.rickross.com/reference/firstborn/firstborn25.html) Lets not forget the togetherness some homosexuals might feel if they are unfortunate enough to be born in some religious families. If they are lucky, they manage to escape with their lives and are merely disowned. If they are not, they can either be stoned or hung. Individual level indeed.

I guess there's a lot of insane people out there, then. Iran's theocracy is, for the most part, fantastic. Yes, their rigid policies toward homosexuals should be altered (as you mentioned), and their system of power is "sketchy", to say the least. However, beyond these issues, what the theocracy has done to empower the Iranians to the position they're in today will not soon be forgotten. Iran's theocracy is marvelous, and it isn't for an atheist living thousands of miles away to decide how certain religious people should have their country run.
As an atheist, I am supposedly not meant to care about the going's on in the world around me unless it directly affects me. As you say, who am I to dare dispute the way in which the theocracy in Iran has empowered its people enough as to view homosexuals and women as being second class citizens? After all, according to Sam, I am supposed to be an uncaring individualist. But I dare voice concern or criticism, you tell me that as an atheist I should simply mind my own business. And that's basically what this argument comes down to. I have argued plenty of times with Geoff, as one example, that the laws and theocracy of Iran is not for us to be commenting on. That it is up to the people of Iran to decide what it is they want. Do you know why I take such a standpoint? Do you know why so many in the world take such a point of view? It is because people such as yourself consider your religion so sacrosanct that any criticism will result in the increasing of abuse to the poor sods who happen to be caught living under the great theocracy that is Iran. So we shut up and mind our own business and we take the criticism that we are all selfish individualistic bastards, because we know if we say anything, it will be those who are caught in the web of "perfect cohesion in religious beliefs" who will be punished for it. Thank you for having proven my point Kadark.

Indeed. Lets look at the positive effects religion has played in some families, shall we? I mean, look how positive religion has been in this girl's life. (http://www.rickross.com/reference/firstborn/firstborn25.html) Lets not forget the togetherness some homosexuals might feel if they are unfortunate enough to be born in some religious families. If they are lucky, they manage to escape with their lives and are merely disowned. If they are not, they can either be stoned or hung. Individual level indeed.

You truly are resorting to classless maneuvers here, Bells. Pulling hyperlinks out of our asses now, are we? That's fine. I hope you aren't so delusional as to believe that a few extreme cases like this associated with religion are accurate representations of religion's role in family and self for all the globe. So what did you intend to prove with your link? You realize that Omaha Mall Shooter, Robert Hawkins, was an atheist, right? Does that somehow tell me about the characteristics and dysfunctional outlooks of atheists worldwide? Let's not play this game.

As an atheist, I am supposedly not meant to care about the going's on in the world around me unless it directly affects me. As you say, who am I to dare dispute the way in which the theocracy in Iran has empowered its people enough as to view homosexuals and women as being second class citizens? After all, according to Sam, I am supposed to be an uncaring individualist. But I dare voice concern or criticism, you tell me that as an atheist I should simply mind my own business. And that's basically what this argument comes down to. I have argued plenty of times with Geoff, as one example, that the laws and theocracy of Iran is not for us to be commenting on. That it is up to the people of Iran to decide what it is they want. Do you know why I take such a standpoint? Do you know why so many in the world take such a point of view? It is because people such as yourself consider your religion so sacrosanct that any criticism will result in the increasing of abuse to the poor sods who happen to be caught living under the great theocracy that is Iran. So we shut up and mind our own business and we take the criticism that we are all selfish individualistic bastards, because we know if we say anything, it will be those who are caught in the web of "perfect cohesion in religious beliefs" who will be punished for it. Thank you for having proven my point Kadark.

Initially, I feel inclined to make a haste reference as to how you constantly say "I'm an atheist, therefore I shouldn't care about anything". I don't endorse this mindset, so don't use it on me. Second, you're just going way off track here. I have admitted that Iran's theocracy is not perfect; however, it is unimaginably preferable to a stagnant puppet regime that endorses a regressive lifestyle that's egregiously anti-Islamic. You are entitled full right to criticize Iran's system, at which point I am entitled to answer your inquiries. Based off this quote alone, it is tantalizingly evident that you haven't a clue as to how Iranians live. Why don't you develop a better personal relationship with the nation, and then comment? It seems what's fueling your anti-Iranian tirade is faulty news sources. Finally, I would not criticize you for minding your own business regarding Iran. Iran is functioning perfectly fine, so meddling in their affairs is only going to make matters worse. It's far more productive to turn your attention to the actual problems in society.

Initially, I feel inclined to make a haste reference as to how you constantly say "I'm an atheist, therefore I shouldn't care about anything". I don't endorse this mindset, so don't use it on me. Second, you're just going way off track here. I have admitted that Iran's theocracy is not perfect; however, it is unimaginably preferable to a stagnant puppet regime that endorses a regressive lifestyle that's egregiously anti-Islamic. You are entitled full right to criticize Iran's system, at which point I am entitled to answer your inquiries. Based off this quote alone, it is tantalizingly evident that you haven't a clue as to how Iranians live. Why don't you develop a better personal relationship with the nation, and then comment? It seems what's fueling your anti-Iranian tirade is faulty news sources. Finally, I would not criticize you for minding your own business regarding Iran. Iran is functioning perfectly fine, so meddling in their affairs is only going to make matters worse. It's far more productive to turn your attention to the actual problems in society.
I am actually not going off track here. This thread is actually about imagining living one's life without any religious constriction, ie, "imagine there is no heaven". Sam had asserted earlier on in the thread that atheists are by and large, individualists who do not care about anything but themselves. That is what that comment was in relation to. Lets just say I was countering other general statements about atheists with some of my own. Tit for tat if you will.

Iran's theocracy is not great. It is a bullying mechanism that rules its people through fear. A structure of leadership that rules its people with fear and constant messages of hell and damnation is never great. Family structures, which are based in religion (as in they are religious) also operate with the same rule of thumb. I have seen it with my own family and with countless of others. One does not dare question the leadership of a country like Iran, or the beliefs of a family out of fear. Does religion keep families closer together? Yes it does. But in doing so, it also restricts the movements of the members of the family in that they dare not question or have doubts without fear of repercussions.

Now do you think an atheist is capable of being a good and decent human being because they live their lives without imagining there is a heaven? My answer is yes. Can a society exist in a similar fashion. Again, my answer to that question is yes.

I am actually not going off track here. This thread is actually about imagining living one's life without any religious constriction, ie, "imagine there is no heaven". Sam had asserted earlier on in the thread that atheists are by and large, individualists who do not care about anything but themselves. That is what that comment was in relation to. Lets just say I was countering other general statements about atheists with some of my own. Tit for tat if you will.

I haven't read her posts to confirm this. Either way, you should reserve this argument for her, and not me - I didn't say anything of the like!

Iran's theocracy is not great. It is a bullying mechanism that rules its people through fear. A structure of leadership that rules its people with fear and constant messages of hell and damnation is never great. Family structures, which are based in religion (as in they are religious) also operate with the same rule of thumb. I have seen it with my own family and with countless of others. One does not dare question the leadership of a country like Iran, or the beliefs of a family out of fear.

Well, you obviously don't know diddly-squat about Iran's theocracy! They don't rule their people with "fear and constant messages of hell and damnation". Simply put, most of their laws are derived from Islam's penal law, which the people fought for, three decades back.

Does religion keep families closer together? Yes it does. But in doing so, it also restricts the movements of the members of the family in that they dare not question or have doubts without fear of repercussions.

Well, this is certainly true...if your family is a pile of raging lunatics! I come from a Muslim family, and I've been very "aggressive" regarding my concerns of Islam growing up, without ever having a "fear of repercussions". I guess this experience will vary by the individual, but most people I know are not begotten to families where doubt or criticism is equitable with "strict repercussions".

Now do you think an atheist is capable of being a good and decent human being because they live their lives without imagining there is a heaven?

Of course an atheist can be good without believing in heaven. However, an atheist can also be a horrible human being because they know they will never pay the price for their crimes.

In case you haven't noticed, Sam is not arguing atheism's/religion's affect when employed through government; she's discussing how religion plays a role in the family life, and at the individual level. No, SAM is discussing religion at the level of "social mores", and including the ones enforced as law.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bali, would be examples.

I don't know where Japan, Mongolia, or Thailand fits into SAM's "theism necessary for good family and individual, distinction of right and wrong" picture. Or even the US.
Of course an atheist can be good without believing in heaven. However, an atheist can also be a horrible human being because they know they will never pay the price for their crimes. If I believed that a theistic upbringing actually produced people who refrained being horrible mainly for fear of "paying the price", I would advocate quarantining theists as dangerous lunatics and prosecuting their upbringings as child abuse.

An atheist has just as difficult a time being horrible as anyone else, and furthermore has no one to lay the blame off on if they are: the responsibility for stoning women to death in the public square, for example, cannot be deflected to the words of prophets or deities.

Theists can pass the buck, often out of the realm of human responsibility altogether. Atheists can't.

Many of the arguments here talk about certain governments and completely ignore the people who live in those countries. I'm referring to the everyday man or woman, you can substitute the king of Saudi Arabia with Pol Pot or Mao or Stalin, if you like. But the everyday people, their views, priorities and attitude towards others. Thats the difference.

I haven't read her posts to confirm this.

Oh?

In case you haven't noticed, Sam is not arguing atheism's/religion's affect when employed through government; she's discussing how religion plays a role in the family life, and at the individual level.

You were saying?

Either way, you should reserve this argument for her, and not me - I didn't say anything of the like!
Of course, my apologies.

Well, you obviously don't know diddly-squat about Iran's theocracy! They don't rule their people with "fear and constant messages of hell and damnation". Simply put, most of their laws are derived from Islam's penal law, which the people fought for, three decades back.

Of course they don't rule their people with measures intended to cause fear. Of course they do not prattle on about hell and sinning. How erroneous of me to have dared presume such a thing. It really is a magical pixie place where everyone is free and happy.

Well, this is certainly true...if your family is a pile of raging lunatics! I come from a Muslim family, and I've been very "aggressive" regarding my concerns of Islam growing up, without ever having a "fear of repercussions". I guess this experience will vary by the individual, but most people I know are not begotten to families where doubt or criticism is equitable with "strict repercussions".

So growing up in a Muslim family, you were never taught about sin, sinners and what happens to them if people do not abide by the religious scriptures? You were never bound by the constraints of your religion? You have never thought to yourself that a Muslim who happens to sin will go to hell?

Are my family raging lunatics? Yes. The greater majority of them are deeply religious Christians who have no qualms in constantly reminding me that my sinful atheist beliefs will have me rotting in hell. Hence why I no longer associate with most of them. I do not want my children to grow up fearing they will go to hell if they do something wrong.

Of course an atheist can be good without believing in heaven. However, an atheist can also be a horrible human being because they know they will never pay the price for their crimes.
Just as a theist can commit crimes and be downright horrible human beings, not caring of their religious fate, thinking themselves safe because they have been taught that just saying "forgive me god for all the sins I have committed" will get them into heaven anyway.

Many of the arguments here talk about certain governments and completely ignore the people who live in those countries. And others do not. You are welcome to differentiate, in your responses.

You were saying?

I should have said, "read her posts where she said 'atheists don't care about other people'". I truly don't recall her saying that.

Of course they don't rule their people with measures intended to cause fear. Of course they do not prattle on about hell and sinning. How erroneous of me to have dared presume such a thing. It really is a magical pixie place where everyone is free and happy.

The majority love it. Go into almost every household, and you'll see Ayatollah Khomeini's picture hanging on the wall. The people who don't like the system are the richer class who liked the Western lifestyle of the Shah.

So growing up in a Muslim family, you were never taught about sin, sinners and what happens to them if people do not abide by the religious scriptures? You were never bound by the constraints of your religion? You have never thought to yourself that a Muslim who happens to sin will go to hell?

Of course I was taught these things. However, as you would imply, I had no "fear of repercussions" when I argued my point, or asked why such and such was the way things in Islam were.

Are my family raging lunatics? Yes. The greater majority of them are deeply religious Christians who have no qualms in constantly reminding me that my sinful atheist beliefs will have me rotting in hell. Hence why I no longer associate with most of them. I do not want my children to grow up fearing they will go to hell if they do something wrong.

I feel bad for you. Religion is the greatest aspect of my life, perhaps because of how it was introduced to me. I cannot discredit your personal experiences, so I will end this part of the discussion now.

Just as a theist can commit crimes and be downright horrible human beings, not caring of their religious fate, thinking themselves safe because they have been taught that just saying "forgive me god for all the sins I have committed" will get them into heaven anyway.

In Islam, you are only forgiven if you don't commit the crime again.

The majority love it. Go into almost every household, and you'll see Ayatollah Khomeini's picture hanging on the wall. The people who don't like the system are the richer class who liked the Western lifestyle of the Shah.


Yep.

Of course I was taught these things. However, as you would imply, I had no "fear of repercussions" when I argued my point, or asked why such and such was the way things in Islam were.
Would your family have been as accepting and forgiving if you had declared yourself to be an atheist or a homosexual (as examples).

In Islam, you are only forgiven if you don't commit the crime again.
Yes, I'm sorry. But that does not wash with me at all. You are basically saying that a person of the Islamic faith could slaughter his whole family or even 100 people and he/she would be forgiven if they never committed the same crime again. It's like telling a rapist that 'it's ok if you just don't do it again'.

Would your family have been as accepting and forgiving if you had declared yourself to be an atheist or a homosexual (as examples).

Depends on who in my family you're talking about. I'm not going to bullshit you: no, my family (in general) would not be okay with me becoming an atheist or a homosexual. I will note that many atheists/non-Muslims would feel the same way if their children converted to Islam. Ask lucifer's angel, if you'd like. The two groups simply abhor having their kindred join the "other side".

Yes, I'm sorry. But that does not wash with me at all. You are basically saying that a person of the Islamic faith could slaughter his whole family or even 100 people and he/she would be forgiven if they never committed the same crime again. It's like telling a rapist that 'it's ok if you just don't do it again'.

If they know that what they have done is wrong, if they do all in their power to make the situation better, and if they never do anything of the like ever again, then they are forgiven. Of course, this is between them and God. They must still fulfill their punishment on Earth (unless the victim chooses to forgive him/her).

SAM:

I see many people who are quite happy to follow the dictates of their religious leaders blindly.

See the Milgram experiment. Thats a human failing not a prerogative of religion.

And every religion encourages this human failing.

Why? Without the conviction that death means a fast track to heavenly paradise, people might actually value life (their own, and others') more.

Or, far more likely, value themselves above others.

Every religious group already values itself above people of other religions. Unbelievers (defined as anybody who doesn't believe the specific flavour of the particular religion being espoused) are dismissed as godless heathens or infidels, at the least, and actively persecuted at the worst.

Religion is a way of defining an in-group and an out-group. If you're "in", you're saved, God loves you, you'll go to paradise after death etc. etc. If you're out, you have no rights and God will send you to burn in Hell for eternity for daring not to believe.

You don't search for something that does not exist.

Nonsense. Many many millions of people spend their whole lives searching for something that does not exist. Just look at the hundreds of religious notions that you, SAM, personally do NOT believe in. I assume you don't place much stock in the ancient Greek religion of Zeus and Athene etc., in Scientology, Seventh Day Adventism, Chinese ancestor worship, Hinduism, neo-paganism,... the list goes on and on. But many millions of people do, and they don't believe in the god of Islam.

How can you be so sure that you're on the One True Path, while all those millions of others are deluded and misguided?

It provides an excuse for those who feel communal to gather in one place. But so do many other kinds of shared interests.

Thats a very shortsighted view of what religion is, its not a club.

Sure it is.

Do you know what the number one predictor of a person's religious affiliation is? It is the religious affiliation of his or her parents.

Do you really think that if you had been born in Greece instead of in India you would not today be pontificating on the wonders of Greek Orthodox Christianity, instead of the wonders of Islam? What religion are your parents? I'm guessing Muslim. Right?

Many western nations are effectively secular these days. Do you think Australia, Canada, England, France and Germany are societies that are breaking down?

Yes, don't you see it?

No. I don't see it. All of those nations have robust democracies, generally good human rights records, civil liberties, well-developed social programmes, strong economies, etc. People who live there are, on the whole, as happy as any who live in theocratic states.

SAM:

And every religion encourages this human failing.


By claiming love your neighbor and there is a morality attached to your actions?

Every religious group already values itself above people of other religions. Unbelievers (defined as anybody who doesn't believe the specific flavour of the particular religion being espoused) are dismissed as godless heathens or infidels, at the least, and actively persecuted at the worst.

Which religion says that people of other religion should be destroyed?

Religion is a way of defining an in-group and an out-group. If you're "in", you're saved, God loves you, you'll go to paradise after death etc. etc. If you're out, you have no rights and God will send you to burn in Hell for eternity for daring not to believe.

The justice system does that everyday, ie creates an in group and an out group. Should we dismantle it?


Nonsense. Many many millions of people spend their whole lives searching for something that does not exist. Just look at the hundreds of religious notions that you, SAM, personally do NOT believe in. I assume you don't place much stock in the ancient Greek religion of Zeus and Athene etc., in Scientology, Seventh Day Adventism, Chinese ancestor worship, Hinduism, neo-paganism,... the list goes on and on. But many millions of people do, and they don't believe in the god of Islam.

How can you be so sure that you're on the One True Path, while all those millions of others are deluded and misguided?

We've had this discussion before. There are many ways to reach one goal and everyone is free to choose the path they want to choose, everyone is also free to not have a goal nor take any path at all.



Sure it is.

Do you know what the number one predictor of a person's religious affiliation is? It is the religious affiliation of his or her parents.

Do you really think that if you had been born in Greece instead of in India you would not today be pontificating on the wonders of Greek Orthodox Christianity, instead of the wonders of Islam? What religion are your parents? I'm guessing Muslim. Right?


Actually I come from a diverse family and we get more diverse with every generation, we have Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Zoroastrians. And I believe that 1400 years ago, there were very few Muslim parents than there are today. Why is that, do you think?


No. I don't see it. All of those nations have robust democracies, generally good human rights records, civil liberties, well-developed social programmes, strong economies, etc. People who live there are, on the whole, as happy as any who live in theocratic states

Of course they are. After all, up until 60 years ago, they were colonising the rest of the world, fighting world wars and had just finished a holocaust. Now they are arming conflicts while practising the secular philosophy of "do as I say, not as I do". :p

However, socially they are not as cohesive and are unravelling with the passage of time. I predict you'll see an increase in right wing conservative movements in these places.

The majority love it. Go into almost every household, and you'll see Ayatollah Khomeini's picture hanging on the wall. The people who don't like the system are the richer class who liked the Western lifestyle of the Shah. IIRC one of the, if not the, most respected of the original founding clerics has been quoted as regretting creating a theocracy in Iran, and putting political power in the ultimate hands of religious leaders - he said it was a mistake, and the political realm should have been secular.

We also have the various signs of unrest, etc, only subsiding in the face of the US threat of violence. Again IIRC, the polls were showing Ahmadinejad and the hardline clerics facing electoral defeat up until the US invaded Iraq next door.

And to the point: running into pictures of Fearless Beloved Leader on everybody's wall is not that great sign, in my own opinion, of devotion or even legitimately supported governance. It's a sign of trouble, bad things.

And every religion encourages this human failing. ”

By claiming love your neighbor and there is a morality attached to your actions? No, not like that - although that's often part of the setup. Which religion says that people of other religion should be destroyed? What religions claim they "say" is not of ultimate significance. What adherents do in the name of the religion is of greater significance. The justice system does that everyday, ie creates an in group and an out group. Should we dismantle it? If it degenerates to doing it arbitrarily and without appeal or curb, as religion does, then we should dismantle it and start over.
However, socially they are not as cohesive and are unravelling with the passage of time. I predict you'll see an increase in right wing conservative movements in these places. If so, with them will come the religious adherence and the "social cohesion" you find so appealing. And people will tell stories of a golden age of the past - if allowed to.

IIRC one of the, if not the, most respected of the original founding clerics has been quoted as regretting creating a theocracy in Iran, and putting political power in the ultimate hands of religious leaders - he said it was a mistake, and the political realm should have been secular.

We also have the various signs of unrest, etc, only subsiding in the face of the US threat of violence. Again IIRC, the polls were showing Ahmadinejad and the hardline clerics facing electoral defeat up until the US invaded Iraq next door.

And to the point: running into pictures of Fearless Beloved Leader on everybody's wall is not that great sign, in my own opinion, of devotion or even legitimately supported governance. It's a sign of trouble, bad things.

It is the same people who fought the Shah and depended on the Ayatollahs to rescue the country who are the ones vastly disappointed.



No, not like that - although that's often part of the setup. What religions claim they "say" is not of ultimate significance. What adherents do in the name of the religion is of greater significance. If it degenerates to doing it arbitrarily and without appeal or curb, as religion does, then we should dismantle it and start over.
If so, with them will come the religious adherence and the "social cohesion" you find so appealing. And people will tell stories of a golden age of the past - if allowed to.


Yeah, one always looks to Republicans when thinking of Jesus. :p

IIRC one of the, if not the, most respected of the original founding clerics has been quoted as regretting creating a theocracy in Iran, and putting political power in the ultimate hands of religious leaders - he said it was a mistake, and the political realm should have been secular.

Could I see the quote? Regardless, one man's opinion doesn't change the overall mood.

We also have the various signs of unrest, etc, only subsiding in the face of the US threat of violence. Again IIRC, the polls were showing Ahmadinejad and the hardline clerics facing electoral defeat up until the US invaded Iraq next door.

Ahmadinejad is certainly not popular or well-liked by Iranians, but that is not because of his foreign policies, or because of the theocracy. It's simply because he's an idiot (or so I've heard from Iranians) when it comes to the domestic stuff.

And to the point: running into pictures of Fearless Beloved Leader on everybody's wall is not that great sign, in my own opinion, of devotion or even legitimately supported governance. It's a sign of trouble, bad things.

Iranians consider him one of the greatest people to ever walk the Earth. They hang pictures to remember his cause and devotion to his people. I do not consider this a "bad" thing. To me, it signifies that the majority of Iranians like their system. Iranians are not stupid, passive people, you see - if they come to the realization that this theocracy is not serving its people well, they well revolt by themselves. They did it three decades back, remember?

Informed by the information sciences and buddhist epistemology, life has always been artificial, the nature-city distinction as well as the virtual-artificial are false. Indeed, he imagines a future where the physical will be seen as virtual and the ideational seen as real. Technology will play a pivotal role in showing us what is maya, and what is real.

The future then is quite likely to see quite dramatic shifts in the boundaries of what we consider the self, said the author of The Future of the Self, Walter Truett Anderson. While history has been considered "given" created by God or nature, the future is being increasingly made, we are directly intervening in evolution, creating new forms of life. Instead of a world populated only by humans and animals, the long-term future is likely to be far more diverse. There will be chimeras, cyborgs, robots and possibly even biologically created slaves. Our future generations may look back at us and find us distant relatives, and not particularly attractive ones

Which religion says that people of other religion should be destroyed?

Pat Robertson believes the OT god did.

Audience Participant: "I've been reading through the Book of Numbers recently, and come across that passage in Chapter 31 about the destruction of the Midianites. How do you explain that apparent travesty of the destruction of that people with the just and holy God?"

Pat Robertson: The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they understand fully what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked. They were given over to idolatry. They sacrificed their children. They had all kinds of abominable sex practices. They were having sex apparently with animals. They were having sex men with men and women with women. They were committing adultery and fornication. They were serving idols. As I say, they were offering their children up, and they were forsaking God.

God told the Israelites to kill them all: men, women and children; to destroy them. And that seems like a terrible thing to do. Is it or isn't it? Well, let us assume that there were two thousand of them or ten thousand of them living in the land, or whatever number, I don't have the exact number, but pick a number. And God said, "Kill them all." Well, that would seem hard, wouldn't it? But that would be 10,000 people who probably would go to hell. But if they stayed and reproduced, in thirty, forty or fifty or sixty or a hundred more years there could conceivably be ... ten thousand would grow to a hundred, a hundred thousand conceivably could grow to a million, and there would be a million people who would have to spend an eternity in Hell! And it is far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a hundred years down the road, and say, "Well, I'll have to take away a million people, that will be forever apart from God because the abomination is there." It's like a contagion. God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn't going to change, and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites and pull the Israelites away from God and prevent the truth of God from reaching the earth. And so God in love -- and that was a loving thing -- took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number.

Now that's a long answer, but I think that's closer to it. Danuta?

Danuta Soderman: "Well, my question would be, Pat, why didn't He just save them all? I mean, why didn't He say, "I forgive you, I save you," and save them that way? Why obliterate them?"

Robertson: A righteous God, just like a righteous judge -- if a man comes into court who has committed murder, the judge can't say, "Well I'm a merciful kind of judge, and the jury has found you guilty of premeditated, first degree murder, but I'm such a nice guy, you can just go ahead and I forgive you." He can't do that and uphold the law. They would impeach him. A judge has to keep the law and God has certain laws in the universe which must be upheld. The only way He fulfilled those laws was to die himself in the person of His son on the cross. And he is not going to force anybody to accept him. It has to be a free choice. And they had freely chosen to reject him and it doesn't get any better. It gets worse.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, May 6, 1985, justifying and celebrating the wholesale genocide allegedly committed by the early invading Israelites.

Pat Robertson believes the OT god did.

Exactly. :)

Exactly. :)

And this was the same justification that Jesuit priests used in south America when they would baptize indian infants, then immediately smash their head against a rock. By killing the infant, they were saving the child's immortal soul. If the child were allowed to grow up among his people, that child would have been contaminated by the native religion, which was inspired by Satan no doubt, and certainly condemned to burn in hell for eternity. If you truly believe as they did, you cannot fault their logic. And how would you argue against them?

And this was the same justification that Jesuit priests used in south America when they would baptize indian infants, then immediately smash their head against a rock. By killing the infant, they were saving the child's immortal soul. If the child were allowed to grow up among his people, that child would have been contaminated by the native religion, which was inspired by Satan no doubt, and certainly condemned to burn in hell for eternity.

Same way you would consider

-death squads, supporting dictators and toppling of democracies, occupation and "liberation" of people, preemptive wars and building weapons of mass destruction, destabilising undeveloped societies,
-aid as a tool for manipulating economies of third world countries and
-endorsing trade practices that increase world hunger

as signs of a progressive society.

As strategists to improve personal position in the balance of power, human beings are clearly without equal. Which is why all legal systems are derived from religion.


If you truly believe as they did, you cannot fault their logic. And how would you argue against them?

By educating yourself in the religion instead of taking other people's word for it.

By educating yourself in the religion instead of taking other people's word for it.

Thats right. Where did that rock story come from?

Both Pat Robertson and Jesuits are as educated about Christianity as anyone. Do you think the inquisitors didn't understand their religion?

Both Pat Robertson and Jesuits are as educated about Christianity as anyone. Do you think the inquisitors didn't understand their religion?

So when the inquisitors were hanging Jews upside down and burning their feet with live coals or stretching them out on a rack, they were doing this because they were

1. emulating Jesus's teachings, or
2. worried about the fate of the Jews' souls, or
3. using the fact that Isabella was supporting them to clamp down on Moorish culture and values and using fear to consolidate their power?

What do you think?

#3?

So when the inquisitors were hanging Jews upside down and burning their feet with live coals or stretching them out on a rack, they were doing this because they were

1. emulating Jesus's teachings, or
2. worried about the fate of the Jews' souls, or
3. using the fact that Isabella was supporting them to clamp down on Moorish culture and values and using fear to consolidate their power?

What do you think?

Irrelevant. The important part is that they were using their religion as justification for what they were doing. If you had attempted to tell them that they didn't understand their own religion, I don't think you would have been received warmly.

Irrelevant. The important part is that they were using their religion as justification for what they were doing. If you had attempted to tell them that they didn't understand their own religion, I don't think you would have been received warmly.

Yup, sorta like telling the above that what they were doing wasn't democratic. :)

Might land you in a secular Gitmo as a terrorist supporter or get you a liberation army. :shrug:

No, you are.^^

Yup, sorta like telling the above that what they were doing wasn't democratic. :)

Might land you in a secular Gitmo as a terrorist supporter. :shrug:

Red Herring. Please try to stay on the subject at hand.

Red Herring. Please try to stay on the subject at hand.

I think death squads define a democratic state as much as an inquisitor defines Christianity. You are free to disagree.

Thats right. Where did that rock story come from?

This individualism culminated in the doctrine of the immortality of the individual soul, which was to enjoy hereafter endless bliss or endless woe according to circumstances. The circumstances upon which this momentous difference depended were somewhat curious. For example, if you died immediately after a priest had sprinkled water upon you while pronouncing certain words, you inherited eternal bliss; whereas, if after a long and virtuous life you happened to be struck by lightning at a moment when you were using bad language because you had broken a bootlace, you would inherit eternal torment. I do not say that the modern Protestant Christian believes this, nor even perhaps the modern Catholic Christian who has not been adequately instructed in theology; but I do say that this is the orthodox doctrine and was firmly believed until recent times. The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured that these infants went to Heaven. No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so. In countless ways the doctrine of personal immortality in its Christian form has had disastrous effects upon morals, and the metaphysical separation of soul and body has had disastrous effects upon philosophy.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/has_reli.htm

I think death squads define a democratic state as much as an inquisitor defines Christianity. You are free to disagree.

Yes, yes, and the Soviets didn't really understand Marxism, nor did Pol Pot. That they used Marxist dogma to justify their actions is the important part. That they were certain of being correct, and any attempt to use reason would be deemed counter revolutionary heresy is what was important to understand if you were to survive their reigns of terror. Anything can be harmful if the ideas are held dogmatically. But the underlying nature of democratic societies is to soften dogma, and to educate people that you can never be certain of being right. Religious dogma's lesson is that you are correct, and your opponents are wrong. And how do you appeal to reason when the source of the dogma are conflicting interpretations of creation myths that are thousands of years old?

I would not defend any mad man who would do such a thing but just because that site makes such a claim does not mean it actually happened or it was not an isolated incident. I believe the point SAM is making is that religion is just a ruse for acts such as this. That is even if it is accurate.

Yes, yes, and the Soviets didn't really understand Marxism, nor did Pol Pot. That they used Marxist dogma to justify their actions is the important part. That they were certain of being correct, and any attempt to use reason would be deemed counter revolutionary heresy is what was important to understand if you were to survive their reigns of terror. Anything can be harmful if the ideas are held dogmatically. But the underlying nature of democratic societies is to soften dogma, and to educate people that you can never be certain of being right. Religious dogma's lesson is that you are correct, and your opponents are wrong. And how do you appeal to reason when the source of the dogma are conflicting interpretations of creation myths that are thousands of years old?

What about the people under communism? What was the effect on the people, how did it affect their priorities and attitudes towards other people? How did they feel about communism?

What about the people under communism? What was the effect on the people, how did it affect their priorities and attitudes towards other people? How did they feel about communism?

What country? At what point in history? My point is that the communist governments were almost a form of theocracy. You had a book of holy scripture that was accepted dogmatically. Critical thinking was discouraged, and even dangerous. Any form of deviation from generally accepted "truth" was heresy, and persecuted. Conservatives were in control, and freedom of expression (artistically or sexually) was not allowed. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I agree. :)

Hence the necessity for education.

Iranians are not stupid, passive people, you see - if they come to the realization that this theocracy is not serving its people well, they well revolt by themselves. They did it three decades back, remember? The situation is a bit different now, wouldn't you say ? Another revolution would be very hard to set in motion, regardless of motivation.
Could I see the quote? Regardless, one man's opinion doesn't change the overall mood. I can't even find the man's name, just recall his face and the sentiments. It's not just one man, though (and keep in mind the risks run by anyone who speaks out against the religious leaders of Iran. Advocates of secular political rule, especially democratic, have been assassinated even in foreign countries ex Bakhtiar).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/world/asia/16yazdi.html?ex=1360818000&en=c375755669e0989c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
“Of course this is not a monarchy, it’s a republican state,” Mr. Yazdi said during an interview in his living room, where he reflected on the government he helped to establish. “However, the political system, basically, is a despotic one. Many basic rights and liberties are continuously being denied. Therefore, one inspiration behind the revolution, restoration of people’s sovereignty, democracy and so on, hasn’t been achieved — yet.”

Mr. Yazdi was an adviser to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the moving force behind the ouster of the shah, the larger-than-life cleric who forged a nation that sought to merge religious governance and republican ideals. Mr. Yazdi was the first deputy prime minister and the first foreign minister.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E1DE1330F93AA35753C1A9609C8B 63
A senior cleric who opposes religious rule of Iran and a number of his followers were arrested Sunday after clashes with the riot police over the weekend, news agencies reported.
About 1,000 supporters of the cleric, Ayatollah Mohammad Kazemeni Boroujerdi, gathered outside his home and on the streets leading to it - - -
- - -
''I believe people are fed up with political religion and want traditional religion to return,'' ILNA quoted Ayatollah Boroujerdi as saying.

Religion is needed to keep the conservation of family values and society. Without it, we would descend into liberal crap societies with drug addicks, prostitutes, etc