Ok.....So you killed off Religion...

[Esquilax]

LOL! That makes perfect sense!

"believe"? Let me correct you before one of your buddies does. "THINK" not "believe".

It's called keeping an open mind, dude. We haven't been convinced of your god claims, but sufficiently cogent evidence could convince us. Somehow though, I don't think you're up to the task.

None of you can even put together a united, consistant coherent message!

That's because atheism isn't an ideology, it's a position on a single claim about deities. The only thing required to be an atheist is disbelief in gods; other than that, we can occupy all manner of social and political quadrants. The only unifying thing about us is varying degrees of disbelief in your god claims.

Lash out when you're backed to the wall. When your conscience is challenged....Exploit any negative you can find! Pick every sentence apart, manicure and taylor it to your own liking. Put it all on ME! I'm whats wrong with your world! You all know best....in your minds! For Christians: No message is good enough. No answer definitive. No act of Love worthy. No reasoning but whats in your heads!

All that aggression, and not a point to be found...

Thanks to All for proving my point(s)!

You would need to have one first.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Well I decided to try and write down what I'd originally posted, so here it is (please work).

First off I would say that 'science' doesn't care one iota about a god or gods. No scientist I've ever spoken to (and I'm engaged to one) even thinks about god through their research.

I would also, in addition, say that the abolition of religion is not (my) goal, rather the abolition of people using their religion as a hammer to force others into thinking as they do as their sole raison d'être.

Anyway, to the premise of the initialy question (effectively; what morals [if any] will dominate society]), I would say, whatever morality has evolved socially at the point in time that the hypothetical was engaged.

As it has done throughout all of history. There has never been an objective morality that exists in history. The morality of a Christian community in a south Scottish border town 1,300 years ago would be wildly different to what it is today. Indeed, morality across the globe can be pinpointed to be vastly different dependent on the community one sought to engage with.

You may be interested (although also may not be) that states with the most entrenched secularism in Europe also tend to be the most peaceful and have the more liberally informed laws when it comes to justice and rehabilitation (for example), notably states such as Norway and Sweden. That's not to say that secularism and religion are mutually exclusive; indeed, Christianity's greatest invention in history was secularism in 1648.

However, I must insist that the idea that we claim 'there is no god' is off the mark. It's simply not true. We cannot know for sure, but until there's evidence to back up an existence of a deity, we can easily and rightly dismiss such claims as 'absurd and false until proven otherwise'.

When Christian hegemonies ran the state system in Western Europe (from the people pre-17th century) the life expectancy for your average poor parishioner was pretty dire, excluding the numerous conflicts that they were expected (forced) to fight in on behalf of the sovereign (often either endorsed through the papacy or in opposition to it). After Westphalia we had the enlightenment, and the beginnings of the liberation of the common people and eventually their supremacy over the sovereign through democratic liberalism (in all its forms).

Democratic liberalism is the result of the abolition of the church's involvement in state affairs and the adoption of cuius regio, eius religio. If we're going to talk about morality in the state without religion, we should look at the way in which the people took control of their own religion from the central papacy and adopted their own rules based on their own state contexts. It hasn't worked out too bad, IMHO.

Thanks for your reply! I always learn something from you!

I guess my question should be: Where do morals come from?

I mean what really stopped us 5,000 years ago from smashing someones head in for a berry? Did we wake up one day and say, "I love my fellow barbarian"?

Now on an individual level, your argument may be correct (more in a minute)....

But, there musta been a "wide spread" conversion of those animal instincts long ago. I don't believe there was a higher learning institute in those days.
And to say that it just happened naturally, that people most everywhere on the globe wanted a deity in their life is ...well... a stretch! Superstition is enough for believing in a God....but for the masses to start believing in morality?

And sure.... why wouldn't an educated, intelligent, thinking secular society be moral? These types of individuals are drawn to atheism and their own godless, peaceful lifestyle. But, the masses aren't so "smart". The masses are looking to be directed. The masses are in need.

You are probably getting my point about now.

And you are definitely correct that religion as "a weapon" needs to be removed from the hands that will do harm. But this is where religion gets the bad rap! and even though the "good" far out-weighs the "bad"....the religious community far out-weigh anyone!

So atheism attracts a "certain", small, defined group of individuals. Religion attracts EVERYONE! And there my friend is my dilemma as a religious person.

No matter how good I, or the 10's of millions of Christians could be...the "bad ones" are still more than the biggest secular society there will ever be!

Hi Rondee,

Sorry for the late reply, work and everything.

Anyway, thanks Good discussion is central to the learning process IMHO.

The central question you post (where do morals come from) is a central question that I don't think has a right or wrong answer. I am (naturally) an advocate of the evolved sense of 'self' and 'worth'. I'm sure you've heard it before, but as a quick recap, the benificial aspects of keeping your tribe alive and to ensure they are all happy and prosperous (Maslow coined this in contemporary terminologies as the heriarchy of needs) is equally benefcial to you and, of course, your genes (should you wish to pass them along).

The so called 'golden rule' of doing unto others would be a basis of this, especially as we began to learn what empathy was. Ultiamtely it comes down, for me, to brain chemistry and how it is formed by the context that surrounds you. I can't cite definitional evidence of this (I'm no biologist), but I can cite where the system becomes defunct, such as in psychopaths and sociopaths (specifically violent and unctrolled ones ones). It would appear that the context that one is brought up in can inform one's morality and behaviour in the long term (people with a psychopathic mindset can be completely 'normal' and exist as a normal member of society. When their upbringing is not formed around a cohesive set up, specifically regarding rules of behaviour, then there is evidence to suggest their mindset can cause the type of violent crimes that serial killers are often most famous for committing).

Now to your 'belief in morals' concept. I must disagree, I don't think there is such a thing as a 'belief' in morality. I think morality is a very subjective and very spurious term to use. Just as an example, one could ask members of different religions the same question about morality, including the golden rule, and still get different responses. Often it might be a variant of "do unto others...", but with a caveat, informed by the contextual arrangement of their specific religion. For a Bhuddist in Burma, it might be "do unto others...except for those Muslims", or in South America it might be the same but for an exclusion of homosexuals (homosexuality is still heavily persecuted in most Catholic South American states unfortunately). And so on and so on.

I don't think that there ever was a conversion en masse to 'believe' in morality, I think there was a general conditioning of behaviour for survival, especially when 'man' was an evolving simpleton that was massively outnumbered and outgunned by both other species and other tribes. Again, what it comes down to is preservation of the self, and the context that allows the self to exist. When the titanic sank, whislt there were many who probably went down with the ship with honour and dignity, there were most likely many more who asked what the honour was in dying. I think the romantic element of the string quartet playing Nearer My God to Thee often overshadows the (probable) fact that people were stepping over each other to see if they could survive. So, again, morality here is contextual and subjective both to the wider context that the people were born and raised in, and in addition to the situation they were presented with at that current point in time.

Regarding the attraction of Atheism issue you raise, I (again) must disagree. I don't think there is a specific demographic that attracts 'atheists'. Again, I think it's the context that one exists in that may give rise to the possiblity of 'remaining' an atheist (as I am a proponent that you are born with no concept of god. I have never once beleived in on since I can remember forming thoughts). Very few of the people I know are religious, and indeed, using the latest census and British social attitudes survey (circa 2010 I think was the last one), around 20 to 50% of the population (depending on the census) are nominal atheists. Not all of those can be liberal socialists (as I tend to see the stereotype of an atheist is), so I think that alone makes the case for the idea that atheists can be anyone who lacks a belief in a deitiy.

And finally, I think we need to be careful when talking about secular and atheist. I could be wrong (so please ignore me if I am), but it seems you're implying that secularism and atheism are one and the same. In fact, when I joined the National Secular Society here in Britain, by virtue of the demographics of my local area, there were more Christian Secularists than atheist ones!

[Undeceived]

What do you mean by "verified," and why should I accept its application here? Your answer will necessarily presume a worldview/philosophy. Philosophy isn't factually verified, yet it is required to answer questions about knowledge and metaphysics before humankind can even begin judging what is verified. So one's worldview is the cone, not the sprinkles. Why not lay out a wide selection of cones first, before the ice cream? Otherwise, we are educated before the reason for education comes to light.

By verified I mean demonstrable. If you can't demonstrate it to be true- or at least provide evidence that it exists- then you can't rightly call it to be factual. Since you could never hope to demonstrate that Jesus was the son of god, you have no right to expect that it be taught as fact in schools, any more than someone who worships any other god has. We simply do not give equal time for unsubstantiated ideas in the educational system, regardless of how many believe them, no matter how fervently; when you learn about World War two, equal time is not given to holocaust denial, because that's got no evidence to support it.

Why would you want to teach things that aren't demonstrated as true in the first place?

So we should only teach science? No history or philosophy? I thought we taught undemonstrable subjects so we could deliberate and flesh them out. Isn't deliberation the purpose of democracy? How else are kids supposed to learn to think critically? What about important topics that are not undisputed? Is it even possible to decide which topics are undisputed unless we deliberate on them?

[Esquilax]

So we should only teach science? No history or philosophy? I thought we taught undemonstrable subjects so we could deliberate and flesh them out. Isn't deliberation the purpose of democracy? How else are kids supposed to learn to think critically? What about important topics that are not undisputed? Is it even possible to decide which topics are undisputed unless we deliberate on them?

We teach subjects that are demonstrable and neutral, devoid of ideological baggage; regardless of religion, history and philosophy remain the same. We all share a history and culture of philosophical thinking; there's no different version of the Alamo for muslims. Nor is there a secondary kind of objectivist philosophy for mormons. These are things all students share, while religions are not.

That's kind of the point.

[Zarith]

By verified I mean demonstrable. If you can't demonstrate it to be true- or at least provide evidence that it exists- then you can't rightly call it to be factual. Since you could never hope to demonstrate that Jesus was the son of god, you have no right to expect that it be taught as fact in schools, any more than someone who worships any other god has. We simply do not give equal time for unsubstantiated ideas in the educational system, regardless of how many believe them, no matter how fervently; when you learn about World War two, equal time is not given to holocaust denial, because that's got no evidence to support it.

Why would you want to teach things that aren't demonstrated as true in the first place?

So we should only teach science? No history or philosophy? I thought we taught undemonstrable subjects so we could deliberate and flesh them out. Isn't deliberation the purpose of democracy? How else are kids supposed to learn to think critically? What about important topics that are not undisputed? Is it even possible to decide which topics are undisputed unless we deliberate on them?

No objection to history or philosophy, as long as it's free of religious dogma.

But if you believe that we should teach that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins, and was resurrected, explain to me why we shouldn't also teach that Zeus is the child of Cronus, and is the supreme being and ruler of all the gods?

Do you also believe that we should teach that Jesus was just another prophet, that Muhammad was the last prophet -- and that Abraham was actually really a Muslim?

And I don't mean teaching in a historical sense here, I'm talking about teaching the theological significance in each case. Do you not see the problems with this?

On what basis can you justify teaching only your particular flavor of dogma?

[Minimalist]

there's no different version of the Alamo for muslims.

There is for Mexicans.

[Bad Wolf]

Its people like rondee that make me wonder if fundamenalist religious people are actually suffering from some sort of mental illness. One that closes the mind to any other possibilities and causes them to lose their grip on reality. Sort of like Schizophrenia. Its funny how he is constantly having a go at us for being angry when he is clearly the most angry and aggressive person on this thread. Maybe his aggression is another symptom of this undiagnosed mental disorder.

[Silver]

Its people like rondee that make me wonder if fundamenalist religious people are actually suffering from some sort of mental illness.

There have been scientific studies which describe the God Spot in the brain.

[Faith No More]

---

LOL! That makes perfect sense!

"believe"? Let me correct you before one of your buddies does. "THINK" not "believe".

None of you can even put together a united, consistant coherent message!

Lash out when you're backed to the wall. When your conscience is challenged....Exploit any negative you can find! Pick every sentence apart, manicure and taylor it to your own liking. Put it all on ME! I'm whats wrong with your world! You all know best....in your minds! For Christians: No message is good enough. No answer definitive. No act of Love worthy. No reasoning but whats in your heads!

Thanks to All for proving my point(s)!

Jesus said: "Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice..."

.... just crickets around here.

---

I find it amusing that you're always angrily screaming about how angry atheists are.

What I don't find amusing, however, is your inability to post anything but bare assertions. I'd ask you to back them up, but you'd just whine about mean and angry you think I am.

I think everything would go a lot more smoothly if you worked on ridding yourself of that chip on your shoulder.

[Bad Wolf]

None of you can even put together a united, consistant coherent message!

Quite rich coming from a Christian, remind me how many different denominations of christianity there are?