Just an observation: the link in the OP also has a recent blog called "Reasons for viewing atheists as subhuman beings." That's among numerous such gems. Among others, calling Richard Dawkins a Nazi, explaining how evolution supports racism, and, my favorite, "Movement to get society to view atheists as subhuman beings rather than as actual human beings." That one is in addition to the one mentioned earlier.
A sample quote: "Truthfully a dog is much higher form of existence than a low-life atheist is." The OP's inquiry, in and of itself, may be valid, but posting that as a jumping off point isn't exactly leading with your best foot. Do a bit more research first, Riv. I know this isn't you saying these things, but choosing reputable sources is itself an important responsibility.
Buuuut, if we're to actually tackle this with some rationality - which, sadly, the OP's link does not - we first have to ask ourselves what we know.
We don't have sociological data on the scale necessary to even begin to answer this question definitively. One man's opinion is as good as the next; which is to say, worthless, without supporting data. That includes my own opinion, which I'm going to give below.
But before we get to the more subjective portion, I lied when I said we're totally without data. We lack data for this question on societal scales, but we do have tons of data for individuals. And a decrease in religiosity tends to correlate with increased morality. Bear in mind, this is on an individual level and on average (both are important, it's not a hard rule that applies to everyone). It doesn't condemn all religious adherents, nor praise all those who are non-religious. But on the whole, less religion tends to = more moral.
Sauce: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017
...my OP there does a good job summarizing the evidence.
Lest we over-extrapolate, this doesn't necessarily mean that the same would hold true for an entire society. But, if we're forming an informed opinion based on that data, I'd say it's reasonable to think society would be just fine. Lacking other evidence for or against either side, it's the best we have.
In a similarly objective arena, I once got into a debate about charities, and it was presented in an atheist v. christian light. It was unfortunately biased, because they wanted to compare total donations of christian charities to atheist ones. Which, of course, pits about 40% of the world's population against 2-3%. I would have been interested had we been able to reframe it as donations per person, but I don't know if that kind of data exists. If it does, I'd be grateful for it.
And now the subjective portion. You all know I'm an atheist and was formerly a devout Catholic. And one of the more remarkable things about that process was how little changed about my behavior and practical, day-to-day beliefs. And most of the inquiries I receive from believers are about how I find morality. Why am I good? What keeps me from doing evil? Where do I find meaning? That they can't fathom these things outside a religious context is their issue, not mine, but to me it highlights how such misconceptions of non-religiosity fuel a question like this. Human is human is human. Nearly any percentage of religious or non-religious, and I tend to think we'd be about the same. And it's much easier to see that having been on both sides of the fence, per se. As such, any question that poses it as a "better or worse" way, I disagree with the premise entirely. It's, at best, needlessly polarized/dualistic. And, at worst, hate mongering, as the link in the OP leads us toward. Things would be different, but probably not markedly better or worse.
And if we're talking historically, the details of history would look a lot different, but the same basic patterns of human behavior would remain intact, as would the steady march of progress we've seen. That religions existed - and oftentimes ruled - at various points in history is not proof of their necessity, only their persistence.
Now, Riv, go do some better research and find somebody reputable to listen to on this. You're doing none of us a favor by digging up hate blogs in corners of the internet.
Originally posted by Digi
But on the whole, less religion tends to = more moral.Sauce: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017
...my OP there does a good job summarizing the evidence.
Actually in the last couples of weeks, while discussing in the Religion forums, I've been tempted to say that in my experience the atheists are more attached to morals than the religious people. I found no fair opportunity to point that out before, but thanks to this post, I can. Also, it's pretty easy to make sense of that.
When you don't believe in anything supernatural the weight of your beliefs is individual, hence you need to get a better grip of your decisions and take them with more care. Responsability of your actions is regarded simply and by definition as the moral thing, we do measure morality as a personal value.
From a slightly more etheral point of view, this can be seen as what jungian psychologists describe as a process of individualization (eh, whatever it's official name it's on english). You are submitted to archtypes, what your society expects from you as defined per your social status. You're rich, you must act like a powerful person, you're a woman, you should be the seductress or the mother, and so on. After being confronted with the traumas we suffer regarding those roles, we actually regain our personal morals and push towards a more "balanced" lifestyle. Archetypes are social constructs, but they are very similar and reflect religious constructs.
And this is partly why I believe discussing about a society with religion is a bit muddy. Society is by itself very belief oriented, the belief doesn't have to be supernatural to be identical to that of religions. We can have the very same kind of social organization that religions have, heavy hierarchies and even superstitious feelings towards our governors and protectors... But then we would not call it religious. It would be so similar that in the end I wonder if it matters.
How important is it for a religion to have an actual supernatural background? Many mythical tales were used to teach morals in religious structures, but were also at tools to teach, a collection of analogies and metaphors. I think our current and past religions are structures that gather other simpler elements that are so engrained in our culture that the question is even hard to understand. Unless of course you narrow down the concept of religion quite a lot (but if you do it too much the answer is also worthless).
Originally posted by Digiok but here's my problem with your data. you have basically only proven that the kinds of people who don't need religion are better off without it. that's great and all but there are still a lot of simple people that might benefit from religion. i know that sounds a bit arrogant or whatever but it is what it is at the end of the day. some people do use religion as a crutch so showing me a guy who can walk without crutches isn't proving shit to me.
Buuuut, if we're to actually tackle this with some rationality - which, sadly, the OP's link does not - we first have to ask ourselves what we know.We don't have sociological data on the scale necessary to even begin to answer this question definitively. One man's opinion is as good as the next; which is to say, worthless, without supporting data. That includes my own opinion, which I'm going to give below.
But before we get to the more subjective portion, I lied when I said we're totally without data. We lack data for this question on societal scales, but we do have tons of data for individuals. And a decrease in religiosity tends to correlate with increased morality. Bear in mind, this is on an individual level and on average (both are important, it's not a hard rule that applies to everyone). It doesn't condemn all religious adherents, nor praise all those who are non-religious. But on the whole, less religion tends to = more moral.
Sauce: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017
...my OP there does a good job summarizing the evidence.Lest we over-extrapolate, this doesn't necessarily mean that the same would hold true for an entire society. But, if we're forming an informed opinion based on that data, I'd say it's reasonable to think society would be just fine. Lacking other evidence for or against either side, it's the best we have.
In a similarly objective arena, I once got into a debate about charities, and it was presented in an atheist v. christian light. It was unfortunately biased, because they wanted to compare total donations of christian charities to atheist ones. Which, of course, pits about 40% of the world's population against 2-3%. I would have been interested had we been able to reframe it as donations per person, but I don't know if that kind of data exists. If it does, I'd be grateful for it.
And now the subjective portion. You all know I'm an atheist and was formerly a devout Catholic. And one of the more remarkable things about that process was how little changed about my behavior and practical, day-to-day beliefs. And most of the inquiries I receive from believers are about how I find morality. Why am I good? What keeps me from doing evil? Where do I find meaning? That they can't fathom these things outside a religious context is their issue, not mine, but to me it highlights how such misconceptions of non-religiosity fuel a question like this. Human is human is human. Nearly any percentage of religious or non-religious, and I tend to think we'd be about the same. And it's much easier to see that having been on both sides of the fence, per se. As such, any question that poses it as a "better or worse" way, I disagree with the premise entirely. It's, at best, needlessly polarized/dualistic. And, at worst, hate mongering, as the link in the OP leads us toward. Things would be different, but probably not markedly better or worse.
And if we're talking historically, the details of history would look a lot different, but the same basic patterns of human behavior would remain intact, as would the steady march of progress we've seen. That religions existed - and oftentimes ruled - at various points in history is not proof of their necessity, only their persistence.
Now, Riv, go do some better research and find somebody reputable to listen to on this. You're doing none of us a favor by digging up hate blogs in corners of the internet.
Originally posted by Bentley
Actually in the last couples of weeks, while discussing in the Religion forums, I've been tempted to say that in my experience the atheists are more attached to morals than the religious people. I found no fair opportunity to point that out before, but thanks to this post, I can. Also, it's pretty easy to make sense of that.When you don't believe in anything supernatural the weight of your beliefs is individual, hence you need to get a better grip of your decisions and take them with more care. Responsability of your actions is regarded simply and by definition as the moral thing, we do measure morality as a personal value.
From a slightly more etheral point of view, this can be seen as what jungian psychologists describe as a process of individualization (eh, whatever it's official name it's on english). You are submitted to archtypes, what your society expects from you as defined per your social status. You're rich, you must act like a powerful person, you're a woman, you should be the seductress or the mother, and so on. After being confronted with the traumas we suffer regarding those roles, we actually regain our personal morals and push towards a more "balanced" lifestyle. Archetypes are social constructs, but they are very similar and reflect religious constructs.
And this is partly why I believe discussing about a society with religion is a bit muddy. Society is by itself very belief oriented, the belief doesn't have to be supernatural to be identical to that of religions. We can have the very same kind of social organization that religions have, heavy hierarchies and even superstitious feelings towards our governors and protectors... But then we would not call it religious. It would be so similar that in the end I wonder if it matters.
How important is it for a religion to have an actual supernatural background? Many mythical tales were used to teach morals in religious structures, but were also at tools to teach, a collection of analogies and metaphors. I think our current and past religions are structures that gather other simpler elements that are so engrained in our culture that the question is even hard to understand. Unless of course you narrow down the concept of religion quite a lot (but if you do it too much the answer is also worthless).
Some interesting ideas about archetypes there. Any literature you could point me toward on that subject?
Originally posted by red g jacks
ok but here's my problem with your data. you have basically only proven that the kinds of people who don't need religion are better off without it. that's great and all but there are still a lot of simple people that might benefit from religion. i know that sounds a bit arrogant or whatever but it is what it is at the end of the day. some people do use religion as a crutch so showing me a guy who can walk without crutches isn't proving shit to me.
This is...well..ok. First, be careful about throwing the word "prove" around. Because what you're talking about it one interpretation of the data. The only thing it proves is that, on average, those who are less religious tend to be more moral. Nothing else. Anything beyond that is an opinion. You can pose "chicken or the egg?" style questions like you have, and it's a valid line of inquiry, but that's all it is, an inquiry; a hypothesis.
But anyway, sure, some people need religion. Or use it as a crutch. Whatever analogy you want to use. It's absolutely true. But those same people wouldn't dissolve into air without religion. Many would have some type of existential struggle, but they wouldn't shirk off their morality, they wouldn't be unable to function, nor unable to find happiness. Saying they use it as a crutch isn't evidence that society needs religion to function; just that some people need a support system - metaphysical, social, or otherwise - to operate to their fullest. To imagine that religion is the only thing that can do this is plainly false.
i'm not saying society needs religion to function. more like i'm skeptical as to whether it overall effects human behavior in a positive way or a negative way (assuming we can agree on some basic criteria for positive or negative). i hear you about atheists functioning fine. really what prompted me to respond in that way was some of my experiences with people in get clean programs or who get out of prison etc. i've encountered a good number of people who seem like without religion they would've actually been ****ed. of course society will always march on with or without them, though.
Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm not saying society needs religion to function. more like i'm skeptical as to whether it overall effects human behavior in a positive way or a negative way (assuming we can agree on some basic criteria for positive or negative). i hear you about atheists functioning fine. really what prompted me to respond in that way was some of my experiences with people in get clean programs or who get out of prison etc. i've encountered a good number of people who seem like without religion they would've actually been ****ed. of course society will always march on with or without them, though.
A select percentage, no doubt. I'll happily agree there. But for people like you mention, it's just a coping mechanism. Their mind is capable of finding strength in a coping mechanism, and I'd contend that it wouldn't need to be religion. It just often is, because of the world we live in. Our basic needs for emotional and social support wouldn't disappear, and would simply take different forms.
To throw you a bone, if we were just removing religion from current society, yeah, many would be ****ed. But that's not the thought experiment taking place. I - and the OP - are supposing society has had time to change and adapt since its inception without religion.
But your comment: "more like i'm skeptical as to whether it overall effects human behavior in a positive way or a negative way"
...seems similar to my first post, where I assert that we wouldn't be much better or much worse off. Different, but mainly the same in terms of overall good/bad. The effects of religion are all intrinsic anyway; they're inside as humans, not a divine mover making choices for us. As such, is it any stretch to say we'd be about the same regardless, since it's our internal mechanisms motivating us?
Originally posted by Digiyea, fair enough i guess. my stance is basically that it might have a positive effect or a negative effect but i don't think we can really be sure without actually putting it to the test. i've seen religious people cite studies that show religion makes people more likely to donate to charity etc and then i've seen atheists like you cite stuff that shows the opposite. i haven't looked into the stats thoroughly enough to say one way or the other how it would play out, but i tend to think those kinds of stats are somewhat limited in helping to make that prediction.
A select percentage, no doubt. I'll happily agree there. But for people like you mention, it's just a coping mechanism. Their mind is capable of finding strength in a coping mechanism, and I'd contend that it wouldn't need to be religion. It just often is, because of the world we live in. Our basic needs for emotional and social support wouldn't disappear, and would simply take different forms.To throw you a bone, if we were just removing religion from current society, yeah, many would be ****ed. But that's not the thought experiment taking place. I - and the OP - are supposing society has had time to change and adapt since its inception without religion.
But your comment: "more like i'm skeptical as to whether it overall effects human behavior in a positive way or a negative way"
...seems similar to my first post, where I assert that we wouldn't be much better or much worse off. Different, but mainly the same in terms of overall good/bad. The effects of religion are all intrinsic anyway; they're inside as humans, not a divine mover making choices for us. As such, is it any stretch to say we'd be about the same regardless, since it's our internal mechanisms motivating us?
i know anecdotal evidence proves nothing at all, but for whatever it is worth i have known plenty of people who basically openly admit that they would have less of a conscious about screwing people over if they didn't think they'd be punished for it after death. i guess i feel i really have no choice but to take their word on it. you say they'd find other ways but i feel like you can't possibly know that. maybe you are giving people too much credit.
for instance, i will admit a lot of you have a lot more of a conscious than i do, just from reading your posts. not that i am a pure sociopath or anything like that, but i guess at the end of the day i really don't feel that bad about making selfish decisions at the expense of others. i could pretend to feel bad about it or whatever but i'd honestly be lying if i did. i guess my point is not all people have the same penchant for empathy, and some of us are a lot more pragmatic and less idealistic when concerning morality.
i guess my point is not all people have the same penchant for empathy, and some of us are a lot more pragmatic and less idealistic when concerning morality.
Yeah, this is true.
Without religion, or even the idea of religion, ever ever existing, putting a morality cap on certain actions, i wonder how these people would actually behave.
Basically, even if THEY have no issues with certain acts they might still check themselves because they know others do....
Re: Successful society without religion?
Originally posted by riv6672
Is it possible?
This article i ran across highly doubts it.
The link is below, but, i think this is a good summation of it, overall...http://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/where-would-modern-society-be-without-religion/
So, what say you, KMCers? Would society (I'M talking world wide, just for clarity.) be about the same without having religion throughout its development?
Really enjoyed reading that blog that you posted a link to and got a good laugh at all the comments that were made in response to the article on that same page even though they were a couple of years old. I agree with most of what that guy was saying but in the comments section I think he went a little too far with his cussing and repeatedly throwing insults at the atheistic commenters who didn't agree with him. Shows a lack of class and I don't see why it was necessary for him to do that in order for him to make his point (which I mostly agreed with).