Poor uneducated unintelligent aheists

[Whirling Moat]

Peace...

So we should perpetuate a lie, just to feed the ignorance? Wha?

Not to feed ignorance, but to keep your door from being smashed down and your valuables taken. To keep your loved ones safe...

This is just another rehash of the old "atheists have no morals" argument, and as such, is completely bogus.

I know atheists have morals...that is not new. What an atheist lacks is a way to force others to accept their morals. Atheists rely on religion for that. Once people have become accustomed to a certian moral standard they continue to behave accordingly even if they switch gods or become godless.

So basically morality is cultural...

[downbeatplumb]

So basically morality is cultural.

agreed.

[Eudaimonia]

Peace...

So we should perpetuate a lie, just to feed the ignorance? Wha?

Not to feed ignorance, but to keep your door from being smashed down and your valuables taken. To keep your loved ones safe...

This is just another rehash of the old "atheists have no morals" argument, and as such, is completely bogus.

I know atheists have morals...that is not new. What an atheist lacks is a way to force others to accept their morals. Atheists rely on religion for that. Once people have become accustomed to a certian moral standard they continue to behave accordingly even if they switch gods or become godless.

So basically morality is cultural...

WTH? Is it morality if it is forced.. ??? That's just tyranny

[Whirling Moat]

Peace...

I thnk it's just meant to be an intellectual excercise, not nearly as inflamatory as the title suggests.

I think it would benefit society in the long term if people took more personal accountability in this life. It might be temporarily chaotic if the shift was as sudden as "Ok now let's mentally switch theist optimism and atheistic materialism populations now", but if it was as gradual as is normal for societies, it would be a tense adjustment period then better I'd think.

I suppose the title is more inflammatory than I intended.

I would generally agree with the idea of people taking more personal responsibility for their lot in life. I think that the poor would however argue that the deck itself is stacked against them in many instances which makes the whole bootstrap thing pretty difficult..They don't have boots... And quite frankly they would have a point. The poor are typically reared in below standard educational systems, have a diet of subpar food, exist in a state of hyperstress due to the danger of living in such environments, and if you are a black or hispanic it gets worse. The term "priviledged" is not meaningless. There are actual advantages provided to the rich. They have superior education, superior food, superior vehicles, and safe environments which stimulate thought. The rich enjoy the luxury of time for contemplation thus enriching themselves and extending the benefit of their wealth and advantage.

I think we all understand this...So, why not go level the playing field and take from the rich? If your life is relatively stable you probably see taking resources from others as wrong...but when you are in need and desperate it doesn't appear wrong to the same degree. The message of leveling the playing field resonates with the poor. When the rich refuse to level the playing field, revolutions are born. Religion has always been used to cool anger...Religion promotes tolerance..But without an afterlife why should one tolerate living in an environment where they are at a disadvantage and then the story ends?

---

Peace...

Ironically and with great caution I agree with you to some extent.. It is a unsettling uncomfortable truth that many people NEED religion like a drug until they slowly get through withdrawal.. I've witnessed people go backwards when they internally wrestle with the realization that there is no Daddy in the sky looking out for them.. I mean that's all they have in life....

People NEED hope. And when they run out of hope they become desperate...And desperation spurs deseperate acts. No one is going to be happy watching the resources continuously flow unevenly in the other direction. There is an internal sense of equity which seems to be violated under such conditions.."Why should they have more and I have less?"..and "Why won't they share?".. There have always existed social hierarchies which are justified by religion. People have long accepted a lower station under the belief that it was divine order. When you disabuse them of this thinking they become like Dorothy revealing the truth about the great Oz..They become hostile..

People are not religious because they logically deduce it to be a good thing.. They are religious because it is their identity.. They are emotionally, traditionally and psychologically tied to the idea of a God.. To remove this idea without putting forth an alternative for many would mean psychosis..

No...I think you are overstating this. Religion is not counterintuitive..it is actually the opposite. Most people see complexity in nature and intuitively seek an intelligence to credit. The most primitive mind can clearly grasp the idea that something does not come from nothing. they also see within their environment order and a seeming cooperation in nature which provides for the living. Basic anthropology teaches such...religion is the natural way of human.

To take it away for many would mean that someone better have resources to give the people and fast...

But here is the thing.. Atheists are not doctors.. or psychologists.. and are not responsible for the God drug the public feeds upon.. I do think it would behoove us to be more careful if possible but I would not hold anyone responsible.. Not generally.. I leave that to those who seek or proclaim themselves enlightened leaders...

You don't have to hold anyone responsible..That won't stop the the duct tape from rolling across your mouth, and the rope being tied around your legs and wrists. It won't stop invaders from yanking the pearls from around your neck so violently that your flesh is torn.

In addition, liberation of a mind should be the goal.. even in the face of the reality of that it may take some time..

The goal should be the truth, however, the result of the truth will also be the truth which means that preparations should be made.

I know men who have gotten off drugs.. stopped beating women.. and reduced their promiscuity when they became more religious.. Because they needed something to respect AND fear to aid their transformation..

That is the way it is intended...

As far as I know there is no alternative to this.. that is free, effective, immediate and generally supported by friends/family.. Also, many religious peoples sense of justice is wrapped up in their belief.. they see no hope for man adequately adjudicating fairness within society and pyschologically cope by believing that heaven will effect justice as it should be done.. (of course controlling for their own inability to adequately assess what justice "is"- possibly hampered by selfishness or greed)

Once again..as I have stated previously, religion is the causeway into wisdom for those willing to stay the course, however it is also the coolant for those who would rise against everyone...

Moat.. in spite of all of this the flaw I see in your argument is to suppress truth in favor of a lie in hopes of reducing casualties of the mind and less peace in society.. however, you have no evidence that this would happen en masse or enough to be destabilizing..

There are many examples of how revolutions begin among those who are oppressed and have no hope...

and even if you did.. It would not make God real.. true.. or necessary.. It would simply mean enlightened atheists would have to figure out what to do with those strung out on God drugs and continue to suffer delusions..

When this is all said and done I will make my closing argument as it relates to the existence of God..until then be patient...Take it slow...



Whirling Moat

[Strongbad]

What if the message of Hitchens and Dawkins caught on to this demographic, how would it affect things like prostitution, drug use, home invasion, parenting, and despair as it relates to quality of life issues? Many low income, disenfranchised populations are pacified by the belief that they will receive their due in heaven, and that their greedy bosses and the rich in general will be punished for being so selfish on Earth..

I think this is what Marx had in mind when he wrote: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.It is the opium of the people."

...Is it safe to liberate the minds of this population at this point in America knowing that there is little probabilty that things are gonna rapidly turn around for the poor and desperate?

To continue the Marx quote: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

So your question is really: "Is it safe to call on this [American] population to give up the condition that requires illusions?" Based on what you are attempting to imply, no, it would not be safe. Should we atheists then stop defending our position of non-belief out of fear of what will happen to us if we don't?

[tackattack]

When the rich refuse to level the playing field, revolutions are born.

Sometimes.. agreed if it's bad enough.

Religion has always been used to cool anger...Religion promotes tolerance..But without an afterlife why should one tolerate living in an environment where they are at a disadvantage and then the story ends?

I think in theory that's valid, but in practice the opposite happens. Religion promotes pompousness, and separation on beliefs instead of class. You don't tolerate your environment, you adapt to it or adapt it, that's why I'm happy whatever my lot.

[Eudaimonia]

Moat..

Your post was nonsensical..

Unless you want me to believe that you are saying that if folx don't bow to religion it will be forced upon them..

Unless you believe it is intuitive to believe that your daddy is in the sky looking after you... I'd have to say that even you don't really believe religion is intuitive.. Here is another thought.. It was once intuitive for the average person to believe their world was "the" world.. until their scientists studied for years and found otherwise.. intuitive to believe the sun was in submission to the earth.. intuitive to believe a lot of stuff.. that says absolutely nothing...

People need Hope.. yes.. but they've found it through a system that is delusionary at best..

We agree that to take away the drug would mean that it would need to be replaced because delusionary people don't do well when their crutch is removed..

The goal is scientific truth which is tempered by flexibility and change should a greater truth present itself.. not static dogma ..

Look Moat.. What people need is to be able to face life without fairy tales.. I believe someone said we need each other not a mysterious intermediary that does not talk back to us..

geez..

[jason56]

You don't need to be educated to find flaw in God. A child would naturally find flaw in God... without adult intervention.

God is piss-easy to dismiss.

next.

[JohnDG]

Just jumping in but I don't believe people we be contempt with being ignorant once they know the truth. The rich and powerful wouldn't be rich and powerful when everyone knows the truth and wants a piece of the pie.

[Whirling Moat]

Peace....

I'm in no way advocating criminality, but if people were to stop praying that some god would provide, and took responsibility for improving their situations, how would that be a bad thing? A large percentage of criminals are the poor, who have accepted this notion that taking what they want instead of earning it is acceptable. Implying that religion in any way prevents it is a clear disregard for the evidence. People need to believe in each other, not sky papa.

There is nothing wrong with them taking it. They are poor and not represented with equity in the social arrangement. There is no way to justify why a poor person should behave morally the same way as those who have unless you insert the idea of a impending retribution. Just think about it..When you say "You shouldn't do that" to a poor and desperate person and they respond "Why not?"...Without bringing up calling the cops or being caught and going to jail..What else do you have??



Whirling Moat

---

Peace....

To continue the Marx quote: "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

I agree with Marx here... If religion goes so must the condition which requires it. If you take away the illusion and leave the condition in place the people will revolt violently. if you intend to liberate the mind you must liberate the people..if you intend to slowly reveal truth you must steadily improve their condition.



Whirling Moat