Imagine no heaven

[Bells]

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.

 

[Michael]

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!

 

[iceaura]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

Then according to me - YOU should remain religious!

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.

 

[stretched]

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.

 

[stretched]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.'

 

[stretched]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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?

 

[stretched]

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.

 

[James R]

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?

 

[S.A.M.]

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?

 

[lightgigantic]

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")

 

[Bells]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[Bells]

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?

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[Bells]

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.

 

[James R]

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?