Imagine no heaven

[Gustav]

perspective, dear james
a case could possibly be made

 

[Gustav]

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

/hard

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[iceaura]

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 ?

 

[Bells]

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.

 

[Roman]

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?

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?

 

[GeoffP]

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?

 

[Roman]

Not just for it being wrong in and of itself?

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

Rape's adaptive.

 

[Bells]

As opposed to this?

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..

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..

 

[Kadark]

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.

 

[Myles]

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

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

 

[Myles]

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]

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. 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.

 

[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. 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.

 

[Bells]

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.

 

[Kadark]

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.

 

[iceaura]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

 

[Bells]

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.

 

[iceaura]

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.