Why atheism makes you mean

[S.A.M.]

Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin would agree. Machiavelli would have reservations - although appropriate for the subjects, the Prince must take care to avoid such delusions in himself, and maintain the form only. Jefferson and apparently Lincoln would more or less agree with Machiavelli.

The propensity of athiests to misuse religion [as the propensity of some theists themselves] is not indicative of the problems inherent in religion, but in people.

Apparently most scientists would not. Is that a sign of the evil of individualism, in scientists, or do they get a pass because of the more immediately severe consequences of such delusion on their work?

Still confusing athiesm with reason?

But we have at last the basics of a discussion that can progress. The next question might be how a responsible member of such a society, one held together by a crippling delusion with all attendant effects and eventual fate, should act if they find themselves unable or unwilling to accept the crippling or the deluded state.

Since when does atheism equate to responsible member of society? In fact, they don't have a society, they co-exist [or not, as they choose] in a society formed and sustained by the crippling delusions of the theists. Kinda like epiphytes.

 

[GeoffP]

Since its more prosocial, what do you think?

More prosocial among anonymous strangers, perhaps. Is it more prosocial from the actual general interaction among members of such a society than among, say, a communist or athiest one? How about when it's linked to GDP or economic status? What - since your thrust is theistic vs. atheistic societies - about the politics of such a system vis-a-vis unbelievers and other upstarts and deviants from the communal philosophy? History suggests that such individuals are not the recipients of prosocial behaviour.

Who is more humanitarian? The one with prosocial rules of living or the one who makes it up as he goes along?

Either, potentially. How could it be otherwise?

 

[S.A.M.]

More prosocial among anonymous strangers, perhaps. Is it more prosocial from the actual general interaction among members of such a society than among, say, a communist or athiest one? How about when it's linked to GDP or economic status? What - since your thrust is theistic vs. atheistic societies - about the politics of such a system vis-a-vis unbelievers and other upstarts and deviants from the communal philosophy? History suggests that such individuals are not the recipients of prosocial behaviour.

Which has what to do with what exactly? Just take a gander at the religion subforum for an eagles view of atheistic societies.

 

[GeoffP]

It has to do with your assumption that such prosociality translates into actual sociality. An eagles view of history will indicate that this is usually not true.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Why atheism makes you mean

What a mean thing to say. :bawl:

 

[S.A.M.]

It has to do with your assumption that such prosociality translates into actual sociality. An eagles view of history will indicate that this is usually not true.

Usually not true? You mean the institutions of marriage, family, church/mosque, festivals, funerals, community, education appear to be btw to you? The fact that every surviving society has had some form of theism, that we are a hugely successful species is irrelevant? That no surviving society is based off atheism or its resulting selfish genes is irrelevant? Whatever

 

[GeoffP]

So??? Every defunct society had religion too. Are they outliers or something? And by non-surviving you mean what? China? Vietnam? Why are you attributing our survival and huge success to religion? Brains don't count? Reciprocal altruism? Posture? Tool use?

On the reciprocal side, how about religious intolerance? Theistic supremacy? These seem like sociality to you?

 

[S.A.M.]

So??? Every defunct society had religion too.
Are they outliers or something? And by non-surviving you mean what? China? Vietnam? Why are you attributing our survival and huge success to religion?

Because that is what religion contributes, a society. Which is why China and Vietnam are both reverting, after a historically brief venture into forced atheism

Brains don't count? Reciprocal altruism? Posture? Tool use?

Sure they do, but it means very little if every one is only looking out for himself.

On the reciprocal side, how about religious intolerance? Theistic supremacy? These seem like sociality to you?

Nope, ordinary human aggression. Its also present in animals

 

[GeoffP]

Because that is what religion contributes, a society.

Excuse me? How is this so?

Which is why China and Vietnam are both reverting, after a historically brief venture into forced atheism

You have evidence of this "reversion"? How is it tied to their survival as a society, since this is your theme?

Sure they do, but it means very little if every one is only looking out for himself.

Are they? What does "reciprocal altruism" mean? Can societies be held together by repressive political systems instead, or even repressive religious systems, obviating the stipulation that prosociality and...what? "Good karma"?...comes from religion?

Nope, ordinary human aggression. Its also present in animals

Then religion's contribution is not pure prosociality.

 

[S.A.M.]

see links added

Then religion's contribution is not pure prosociality.

It is, look at the edicts of any religion. Human beings are not perfect, however.

Are they? What does "reciprocal altruism" mean? Can societies be held together by repressive political systems instead, or even repressive religious systems, obviating the stipulation that prosociality and...what? "Good karma"?...comes from religion?

Sure they can, but those are the short lived cultures. The ones that survive and persist are based on people adopting a religious ideal that promotes prosocial behaviour, not being repressed under forced ideologies [whether by theists or atheists]. However, uniting the people requires a communal ideology, which religion provides.

 

[GeoffP]

It is, look at the edicts of any religion. Human beings are not perfect, however.

Some religions have had very bad, harmful edicts. Look at how they treat homosexuality, or women, or unbelievers. It's fine to say that human beings aren't perfect, but human imperfection is the nature of every system, and its failings. It's not an excuse.

Sure they can, but those are the short lived cultures.

Are they? How do you know? Which ones?

The ones that survive and persist are based on people adopting a religious ideal that promotes prosocial behaviour, not being repressed under forced ideologies [whether by theists or atheists]. However, uniting the people requires a communal ideology, which religion provides.

Regrettably, some societies have survived quite a long time under very repressive religious ideologies, every bit as bad as the worst communist systems. To paraphrase one of George Orwell's axioms, they are like a boot on a human face...worn by "God".

 

[S.A.M.]

Some religions have had very bad, harmful edicts. Look at how they treat homosexuality, or women, or unbelievers. It's fine to say that human beings aren't perfect, but human imperfection is the nature of every system, and its failings. It's not an excuse.

Its called conformity. Haven't you heard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity_(psychology)

Are they? How do you know? Which ones?

All the autocratic enforced ones?

Regrettably, some societies have survived quite a long time under very repressive religious ideologies, every bit as bad as the worst communist systems. To paraphrase one of George Orwell's axioms, they are like a boot on a human face...worn by "God".

Hmm so even repressive religious societies have long survival rates. Thats interesting.

 

[iceaura]

The propensity of athiests to misuse religion [as the propensity of some theists themselves] is not indicative of the problems inherent in religion, but in people.

The propensity of religion to lend itself to easy misuse, by anyone with power or wanting it, is a serious problem we all have.

Since when does atheism equate to responsible member of society?
- --
Still confusing athiesm with reason?

Nobody said that. And with most argument subjects, you would know better - and be able to answer questions.

But reason itself seems to evaporate when theistic belief perceives a threat. Reread that Dawkins review, Mary's, you quoted. Note the lurid language, the illogic, the utter incomprehension of the ordinary meaning of Dawkins simple, plain prose. That is a professional philosopher - what is crippling her normal abilities?

Hmm so even repressive religious societies have long survival rates. Thats interesting.

And a little frightening, no? Fortunately, only some of them.

 

[S.A.M.]

The propensity of religion science politics economic policies capitalism government media to lend itself to easy misuse, by anyone with power or wanting it, is a serious problem we all have.

Plenty of choices there

But reason itself seems to evaporate when theistic belief perceives a threat. Reread that Dawkins review, Mary's, you quoted. Note the lurid language, the illogic, the utter incomprehension of the ordinary meaning of Dawkins simple, plain prose. That is a professional philosopher - what is crippling her normal abilities?
And a little frightening, no? Fortunately, it is not true of all of them.

plain prose? Geez have you seen his work? The Selfish Gene? The God Delusion?

 

[lightgigantic]

The propensity of religion to lend itself to easy misuse, by anyone with power or wanting it, is a serious problem we all have.

as is politics (should we get rid of all politicians?)
as is school teaching (should we get rid of all school teachers?)
as is a marriage partner (should we get rid of all marriage partners?)
etc etc

 

[iceaura]

plain prose? Geez have you seen his work? The Selfish Gene? The God Delusion?

Compare any paragraph in any of them with your quote of Mary Midgely.

as is politics (should we get rid of all politicians?)
as is school teaching (should we get rid of all school teachers?)
as is a marriage partner (should we get rid of all marriage partners?)
etc etc

All those answer to reason, and have a necessary foundation in established reality, and operate at other scales, and are more difficult to misuse accordingly, in the manner with which theistic religion whores itself to the nearest sword.

Nor do they pretend to a legitimacy beyond their benefits - they justify their existence without reference to the unanswerable supernatural, as human creations for human needs.

 

[lightgigantic]

All those answer to reason,

all aspects of marriage, politics and school teaching answer to reason?

and have a necessary foundation in established reality,
and operate at other scales, and are more difficult to misuse accordingly, in the manner with which theistic religion whores itself to the nearest sword.

you could drive ideological freight trains through those italics

Nor do they pretend to a legitimacy beyond their benefits - they justify their existence without reference to the unanswerable supernatural, as human creations for human needs.

aha
so its not really a power issue but an issue of what you think is legitimate and substantial to your world view/values

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Usually not true? You mean the institutions of marriage, family, church/mosque, festivals, funerals, community, education appear to be btw to you? The fact that every surviving society has had some form of theism, that we are a hugely successful species is irrelevant? That no surviving society is based off atheism or its resulting selfish genes is irrelevant? Whatever

What makes a species seem hugely successful?
1111

 

[iceaura]

all aspects of marriage, politics and school teaching answer to reason?

No. The institutions do. Human creations for human needs, accountable to humans.

so its not really a power issue but an issue of what you think is legitimate and substantial to your world view/values

It's an issue of accountability to ordinary human beings.

you could drive ideological freight trains through those italics

All the more significant that you can't fit a theistic institutionalized religion through them, then.

 

[GeoffP]

Its called conformity. Haven't you heard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity_(psychology)

So it's not necessarily prosociality.

All the autocratic enforced ones?

Which were? Of the cultures that have failed in history, which ones were religious? Which ones were not?

Hmm so even repressive religious societies have long survival rates. Thats interesting.

Rather, that's unfortunate, both for humanity and for your arguments. Long lived unhumanitarian cultures are not particularly prosocial for the people they call their enemies.