To think it’s unwise to lose the idea of God(s) in society?

[Digita]

To think it’s unwise to lose the idea of God(s) in society?

Whenever I hear people arguing why faith in any sort of higher being is 'stupid' or 'delusional' I wonder if they've thought through the wider implications of a godless society. It might not be all that it's cracked up to be... the idea of higher beings might be invented but invented for a reason too. Is there a need for a philosophical concept of something more for accountability, law and order?

“Society needs reasons for people to tell the truth even when it is to their disadvantage.” Why swear on a Bible? The Courts have kept swearing an oath on religious texts because there’s still a psychological, moral force behind it.

"Co-operation is a key component in human interaction and also, according to new research from the University of British Columbia, the spread of civilisation. Not because for any altruistic reason, though; instead it might be directly down to a fear of a vengeful god." Fear of punitive gods linked to rise of human civilisation’

‘A new study published in the journal, Nature, tests the theory that communities are fair and cooperate with outsiders because of the fear of divine retribution.’ ‘Moralistic gods, supernatural punishment and the expansion of human sociality’

Divine intervention?

You think god bothers fixing MN votes?

I think an increase in Nihilism is responsible, in part, for the increasing levels of anxiety and depression in our society, and whilst I am athiest, I do think religion or religious structure provided meaning and/or purpose in days gone by and we are losing the spirituality element of humanity.

This thread is a 'discussion' where one side is trotting out a steady stream of pre-prepared quotes and pretending it's a structured argument.

I'm trying to figure out if:

• The OP just finished the audio course they can't help name-dropping at every opportunity and would like to make it seem relevant.
• The OP is shilling this 'discussion' as a means of generating data for a dissertation.
• It's online evangelism week for whichever sect they belong to.

The constant answer-by-quote is tiresome. It's like arguing with a 1st year philosophy/divinity student (yes, I've flat-shared with both in the past).

😂

You'd have thought a god who indulged in divine intervention on MN votes, or catching out perjurers, could manage to avert crimes in the first place, but without taking away free will. Think of all the harms he could prevent with a few literal or metaphorical banana skins.

People in any occupation can be corrupted by greed and fear.

If we are talking about corruption in medicine and healing- yes, people in the pharma industry can be corrupt and greedy; so can faith healers!

In any case, no one with sense thinks that science determines morality. (Though ironically this whole thread is based on an article about a scientific study, published in 'Nature'.) Many people think that science offers a better explanation for the existence and nature of the world than religion does. But that doesn't mean that they think it determines morality.

'If they think there's no god, then there's no fear of divine retribution either. So, anything goes.'

That's the most amazing leap.

People who think there's no god still have to fear:

The pangs of their own conscience if they harm others

Being disliked and disrespected by others, whose good opinion they value

Public humiliation, loss of status, loss of job. (For instance, a scientist who is found to have falsified data may find that they are unable ever again to get research funding, and their career may end in disgrace.)

In serious cases, criminal sanctions and imprisonment.

Do these always act as deterrents? No. But the prospect of divine punishment certainly doesn't seem to do so either!

Of course that is actually wrong. He is blaming the missionaries for something the white settlers did. A typical Marxist ploy. Never mind there was no truth in it.

so... the white people didn't take their land?

Fuck me. The missionaries WERE the white settlers.

is everything anathema to your worldview a ‘Marxist ploy’?

Read some history my friend.

That is not true.

Some of us have been to these countries and know a little more.

so the white folk didn't steal their land and convert them to Christianity? Be clear what you are saying here please.

The pointing out of corruption within the structures of power of a pharma company is not so unusual it is worth special consideration, or reflective of behaviours specific to atheism. You can observe the same happen across the religious and secular world.

Pretty much the entire history of the Vatican involves difference families vying for power via the church. The Borgias are one of the more notable examples.

The fear of god never stopped anyone. Hell, why would it? It’s not like you can’t cherry pick your Bible verses to convince yourself and others that actually, you’re acting on god’s behalf rather than your own (hello Joseph Smith, Oliver Cromwell, David Koresh et al).

Well, 'missionaries' and 'land stealers' weren't completely overlapping sets of people.

But it's irrefutable that various 'Christian' institutions were complicit/instrumental in various significant abuses against colonised peoples. Someone mentioned British Columbia upthread

The folk who stole their land were not Christians. If you read the history of missions and you will read that the missionaries came to set up schools and hospitals as well as to share the gospel. Many paid for it with their lives by dying of the diseases that were prevalent. Some of us actually knew these people so please do not insult them. Their interest was not land it was people. There were others of course who are colonialists whose interest was land but they were not the missionaries.

which could mean ‘a local taxi driver told me X and I chose to believe it because it confirmed my implicit biases and he’s definitely a legit source’. Feel free to share your sources.

I take it you’ve also been to these socialist hells then, given that you seem to think you know more about them than those of us that are actually from them?

Interesting when we remove God and put old Karl Marx there we get 100 million deaths in one century alone.

Nice strawman, @Malie . Nobody has proposed replacing god with Marx. So far you've had the Atheist Atrocities fallacy, the classic circular argument and now the strawman. Something of substance would be good now, please.

It’s almost like humans are a warlike species, who inflict levels of harm proportionate to the ability to create the means to do so.

Specifically in the name of atheism though, or in the name of totalitarian regimes consolidating power? How many deaths in the name of religion? What about totalitarian regimes supported by religious infrastructure (the Ustashe for one example. Franco is another. Latin America can provide a few. We don’t even have to touch on Hitler if we don’t want to)?

@whumpthereitis for Malie, atheism = Marxism. Don't know where she learned that, but ksit's how she thinks.

Wasn't it Marx who called religion the 'opiate of the masses?' Maybe that's where the atheism=Marx comes from.

@gnilliwdog it was, but that doesn't mean that atheism was the main driver of the excesses of communism, which is what Malie implies all the bloody time.

Stalin attended a seminary. Hitler was a Christian. Pol Pot was a Buddhist. Trying to deny any of that as a way of scapegoating atheism as the root of all human evil is just as bad as saying organised religion is the root of all evil. The problem here is authoritarianism, and that exists in both religious and secular movement and organisations.

@pointythings Right, was just wondering why some religious people hate Marxism. Mary Tudor burned a lot of people for being the wrong kind of Christian, I believe.

A lot of non religious people aren't keen on Marxism (or more accurately, the communist regimes his ideas led to) either! But the lazy false equivalence atheist=Marxist is irresistible for some people I suppose.