Hmm... this has been mulling around in the undercurrents of my mind for a while. It seems to me that Atheism is at complete odds with reality of humanity and the requirements thereof for stability in societies. Personally, religion has no utility to me whatsoever... but in reality, it serves a great utility in underpinning the stability of a society of potentially murderous individuals. Grr. I don't have time to go into the whole deal at the moment, but I'll leave the following though in hopes of stimulating further conversation: The connundrum I'm in is as follows: Since religion provides a stable society, it should be supported. Since I see the flaws in religions, I should not support them. Part of me thinks that the state should promote religion with no penalty for not participating. If you see through the BS, you see through it - nothing against you for doing so and perhaps you behave well because you're intelligent and responsible. If you don't, then you fear god and behave well and responsibly for fear of damnation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :bugeye: :m:
Religion is nature's self-defense mechanism against our own intelligence. Sort of like a built-in safety harness. The danger is our intelligence run amok (murdering for example), and hallucination is the answer. But not just any hallucination, one that re-connects you back to life (Re-ligio). People like to distinguish between 'atheism' and 'spirituality'. It's the fashion nowadays for people to say they're 'spiritual'. Like Oprah and all those other disgusting whores. Most of the time its just an excuse for entertaining some other sort of new-age hallucination. The answer, I think, is simply to foster a culture that teaches and supports social consistency, and values life. Confucianism does this rather well- all without excessive reliance on some Deity. China is a very socially consistent society, with the greatest number of atheists in the world, due to Confucianism.
I don't think atheism per se is the culprit. A side-effect of atheism (atheism as we know it in the West) is moral relativism -- and this is *the* factor that diminishes social stability. I don't think it is fair to stygmatize religion as being something for the sheep, to keep them together and proper, at the threat of hell fire. It's true, this is how religion has often been practiced -- as a kind of elitism, under the flag "God is with me, but he is not with you, if you don't think the way I do". Anything can be abused. For some reason, it is automatically assumed that if someone is pro-religion, then he is conservative, reactionary, rigid, inflexible. But the truth is that *anyone* who has a set of values and preferences which he can explicitly list and consistently holds and acts on, is conservative, reactionary, rigid, inflexible. This is what sticking to your beliefs is like in practice. An atheist can be just as conservative, reactionary, rigid, inflexible in holding his values and preferences, as a Catholic, for example.
I agree with Bob, Oprah is a disgusting whore, and Confucianism is a secular and worthy replacement for the function of religion. Religion only promotes a stable society if all the members of that society are of that religion. In a multicultural society like the US, it can cause friction.
but what d'ya mean by 'athiest' aNd 'religion'...these are blanket terms. you got all kinds of athiests here...agnostic....scientific pantheists, mechanstic-science followers...... and the religious talk discussed herer is mainly literalist. literalism was frowned on by the gnostics and early christians. also. what about the Religion of the Earth where it is not LIKE the popular idea of religion, where for example the Abrahamic religions are 'revealed' and have their prophets and holy books and idea of a transcendental 'God' that needs middle men...rather than Direct spirituality being encouraged what is direct spirituality? inspired ecstaic expression through hallucinogens, and/or drumming, chanting and dancing etc by what you say. your idea of religion is caught up in the indoctrination of 'reward' and 'punishment' for not following 'God's law'..or having faith, and a belief in that dogma athiests here on the whol also seem to equate 'religion' with literalism.
Alright. Now think practically: How is this to be done in the West? The problem is that there is no common obligatory system of ethics. How do you fix this? People won't just give up on their belief system for the sake of a "greater common good". Plus, elitism inevitably arises, as there will be one group who has originally held the belief system that now all should turn to. You get revolution, and at least two sides, and the problem of multiple ethical systems within one society that diminish the society's coherence, remains.
Hi. Correct me if I am wrong - but I think communism tried to take religion out of the equasion all together and with it was lost a great sense of community. In Russia think they had to quickly invent special days reflecting their new form of government to replace the Religious holidays because there was a sense of lost. Ultimately this regime collapsed, as history showed - although that might have been for other reasons. If all this is correct then it shows that religion certainly does have a solid base in stablising todays society, but since we haven't really seen a control to this "Experiment" then obviously this is not conclusive.
Does religion make a stable society and is such a society worthwhile? Presumably stable societies cannot adjust to changes in circumstances as well as less rigid ones. What is the evidence that China is "socially consistent", that it has the greatest number [or proportion of the population- a more important thing, surely] that are atheists or that this is due to Confucianism. Is confucianism actually a religion anyway? The fact that superstitions accrued around the basic philosophy suggests we may tend to certain kinds of belief of course. I think that sixty years of marxist domination may have affected beliefs and the systematic murder of tens of millions of people- even in such a large society- has had an effect on the ratios. In fact, marxism- or vulgar marxism at least- has quite a bit in common religion- most obviously a habit of killing nonbelievers, whether they exist or not. Like christianity and islam it provides stability through fear of enemies, internal and external. I think a society that rested on the moral ethic of "Do what you want if it doesn't hurt anyone or anything else" has a lot going for it. It may not be "natural", but then not killing people we don't like isn't natural either and most sociaties do stop us doing that.
It seems to me that for most of mankind's history, religion only provided a stable society via the use of force, threats, and some form of slavery for most of the people. Why give atheists a bum rap? Most of us do not try to convert believers to our point of view. Most of us behave in conformance with a good code of ethics.
Hmm.. well, you're right... but I don't think it's necessarily a side-effect. Moral relativism is "how it is" regardless of what one asserts. It is easier however, if the group that comprises a society shares the same moral perspective. Why not? How is that incorrect? Regardless of whether or not they insist I believe too, they are still sheep - together and proper and are threatened by hell-fire. So sayeth the "good book" no? I don't want to debate that here though. I'm more concerned with how athiesm could erode the pillars of society. That wasn't what I was getting at. I just meant that religions promote adherence to a particular moral code for whatever reason people accept it. I shouldn't have stated it that way I suppose. Grrr. I can't get my head straight on this one. I don't even know if I have a point or if my thoughts are just going to end up moot on the issue. Man I'm hopeless at the moment. My connudrum has no clarity. I just feel some conflict, but can't verbalize it properly because I'm not sure what it is. Something about an apparent growing conflict between the secular and religious.
To keep a society stable, an obligatory system of ethics is needed. Some system of ethics, as long as the set of beliefs is consistent, definite and finite, and all members are obliged to it. Whether this system of ethics is a religion or some philosophy, is secondary. Indigenous tribes are perfect examples of that.
the simple but vital difference is, atheism equates humans with matter or/and as its by-product. human mind with all its apparent dirtiness, rebellion & ambitions , deep in the corner longs for and revers idealism. When it finds it in a personalized form of God, it feels safe & anchored, not drifting pointlessly. this is though a bit of generalization on my part.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Atheism makes no assertions in that regard... though certain atheists do. I'm an atheist and don't feel that way. I just feel there is no real acceptable "truth" per se in that regard. I have my own theories (as you're aware from our previous conversations) regarding this stuff, but I don't assert them as factual. That's what bothers me about the hallucinations Bob spoke of. They are generally asserted as a matter of objective fact. Question it and circularity dogmatically ensues. That annoys me. Yet at the same time, the end reached by those who propogate the dogma - is desirable to the whole... unless you happen to be one of those who disagree, then maybe not so much. Meh. Obviously, my lack of clear thinking on this topic (to the point of not even being able to clearly state the topic) is the source of my connudrum. I need to get it together man! I think I agree with what water is saying and need to think about it some more.
... like "laws"? But laws are the result of ethical examination. If people disagree on the ethics that support them, stability is lost - which is I'm sure your point. Ethics cannot be obligatory except in some form of law, though I get your point. Hmm... right. Even if all members don't oblige, they're still obliged. Sure. Practically speaking though, given that America is pretty much christian, christianity is the "ethical dogma of choice". Thus, I'm obligated to a system that I don't believe in. Thus is possibly the source of my dillema. To some extent, I'm socially obligated to believe in something I can't believe in. I'm sure this is the case for most people. I believe in my society and care greatly for it, so I earnestly feel somewhat obligated to the ethical system here... but I could never have full buy in from a practical perspective. I'm not a christian. So on one hand, I feel like I'm kind of pressured to be christian in order to buy into the system, but on the other hand, I know I could never be a christian. *shrug* I guess I'll just have to get over it and muddle through.
It might seem like values in general are dogmatic, but I disagree. As I've said elsewhere, they're most 'reasonable' when they enhance, propagate or protect life. Because that's what we are, life. To assume that all values are dogmatic, or must be given by some God, is also a form of moral relativism, in the end. It eliminates the possibility that values might exist for a reason and that you might choose them for that reason.
It's not done that way. Such proactive measures are counter productive. Confusionism, or something like it, will only take hold voluntarily when people recognize the value of it. Most of our problems are someone's solution. More advanced, of course, is no system at all, like taoism.
actualy all atheism has to offer is Reality. unlike religion which supports fantasy..not very productive for advancement and improvement of life.. and stable society comes from order and laws agreed upon by the majority which in religious society like Islam may include choping of thieves hands or stoning unfaithful women...not very humane in my book.. didnt seem to do much to stop Hitler you cant be serious,religion is behind almost every problem,conflict or war,it seems from N.Ireland catholics vs Protestants ME Jews vs Arabs xians vs Islamists and most if not all of the religious morrons hating atheists or anyone who thinks believes different
I have to disagree with the thread's starting post in its assertion that religion has a stabilizing effect on society whereas atheism destabilizes society. I don't think we can draw any conlcusions on the relationship between Atheism and violence. Quite simply, every human society has religion, or is the descendant of a religious society, and as such, the basic foundations for morality are therefore seeped in the religion(s). Thus, there isn't really one society on earth from where to use as evidence in order to draw any conclusions on the effects( as purported) of atheism on a society. We do however have ample evidence of religion's ability to induce violence, much in the same way as does any ideology that demands absolute acceptance. So, we can hypothesize based on what little evidence we have... and even in that scenario, I think that your statement is incorrect, wes. Religion is only nonviolent and stabilizing when unthreatened-- it's much like saying that dictartorships are stabilzing for society. The argument is inherently flawed as it presupposes compliance or acceptance of the associated ideology by the citizens of any given society.
The stability religion- and some kinds of politics- allegedly provides does not come from stopping killing: it comes from controlling killing by providing enemies people can kill and feel good about killing.
