Oh man, please greenlight this. Could be epic flamebait.

Obvious

Yes, I would imagine that being more concerned about the here and now could make a person more responsible.

But those atheist scum will be too busy fornicating and taking drugs to notice that they aren't floating up into the sky when the Rapture comes. Then the crime and murder rate will soar as they start squabbling over who gets all the stuff the highly religious and devout people left behind.

"Smarter people make better decisions. More at 11"

/Not that the article needed the help, but let's make this thread go nuclear.

Another way of putting the headline, "Intelligent people don't do as much stupid stuff as idiots."

Never mind that atheist regimes murdered 150 million people, Danes and Swedes prove that atheists are really nice people. That certainly makes a lot of sense.

You know who else didn't like religion?

GaryPDX: You know who else didn't like religion?

thomas jefferson?
Nietzche?
logical positivists?

mandingueiro: thomas jefferson?
Nietzche?
logical positivists?

Churches?
Lead?
Very small rocks?

SkinnyHead: Never mind that atheist regimes murdered 150 million people, Danes and Swedes prove that atheists are really nice people. That certainly makes a lot of sense.

Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical "cultures of life" that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards.

Yeah those damn Dutch Japanese people and their prosperity and technological achievement.

Many would go further and agree with conservative commentator Laura Schlessinger that morality requires a belief in God-otherwise, all we have is our selfish desires. In The Ten Commandments, she approvingly quotes Dostoyevsky: "Where there is no God, all is permitted."

You know, I'm one of the most cynical motherfarkers you could ever hope to meet. And yet, it makes me sad to know that lots of people out there take such a dim view of human nature as to believe the only reason we don't run around slitting one another's throats for the sheer joy of the kill is the threat of being thrown into an eternal pit of fire.

SkinnyHead: Never mind that atheist regimes murdered 150 million people, Danes and Swedes prove that atheists are really nice people. That certainly makes a lot of sense.

I like how you knee-jerk defend stuff like this. That's funny.

But...but... if someone doesn't believe in my God, then I HAVE to kill them. It's the only tolerant and peaceful way!

Great, our resident skinhead has spoken out on the topic of religion and the quality of humanity. Now I've seen it all.

Religious repression is a helluva drug.

Just reiterates what many thinking people already know - morality doesn't need a religious basis.

Heresy!

This actually seems pretty obvious to me.

Without a belief of eternal redemption, moral standing is based in societal terms - how your neighbours, family, and society at large perceive your actions. There is not the "get out of jail free" card of "Oh, my confession and devotion later will excuse my sins now." When judgment is in the near future rather than the distant future of life's end and eternity, it changes the perception of consequences to your actions. And I'm not talking about just murder or violence, but little things, like how you treat your neighbours. It also influences how you think society as a whole, via the government, should act, because government is the main provider of social goods, not competing organizations.

There is also not a strong us vs. them cultural mentality based on religious affiliation in atheistic societies, which you see very much in the United States. That conflict pits people against each other in terms of whose morality is superior, whose social-religious standing is superior, and that conflict is very well-financed by appeals to one's standing in the afterlife. Even if it isn't deliberate, religious people do have a world-view where their morality is ranked higher, and that has consequences for how they view other people and general social issues. In highly secular societies, instead you might see an us vs. them mentality being based more around ethnic or linguistic cleavages or secular nationalism. It would be interesting to examine how this affects overall levels of trust and understanding. (I should probably read more on this topic. If anyone knows some good articles, feel free to post links.) The United States is highly religious and it also seems like a very un-trusting society, although I am basing this on qualitative observation rather than quantitative information. People do not, generally, trust the government (and this is quite reasonable, based on the people they elect.) They do not trust the average man on the street, in terms of his motivations or his ability to make decisions, or in terms of his having the "proper" moral view, whether they're coming from the right or the left. There is an automatic defensiveness in terms of needing to maintain or expand their position in society.

So - religion offers a moral system but also can excuse bad behaviour, in the name of interpreting the will of an intangible deity, or by offering the fail-safe of eternal redemption. As part of their competition they foster mistrust. Not all religions encourage critical thought, either. Religions are also, at heart, un-egalitarian; the Abrahamic religions are about submission to higher authorities, and their books were written in strongly un-egalitarian political eras. But this submission is to a heavenly power, not to Caesar, another point of competition with a secular government.

I'm not saying religions are bad, there are some religion-focused movements that have accomplished very good things - like the abolitionists - but the assumption that religion is a great thing for society and for morality, I question that when you look at some highly religious societies, whether it's the US or Iran.

Ooh. Greenlit and main. Nice.

bobbette: This actually seems pretty obvious to me.

Without a belief of eternal redemption, moral standing is based in societal terms - how your neighbours, family, and society at large perceive your actions. There is not the "get out of jail free" card of "Oh, my confession and devotion later will excuse my sins now." When judgment is in the near future rather than the distant future of life's end and eternity, it changes the perception of consequences to your actions. And I'm not talking about just murder or violence, but little things, like how you treat your neighbours. It also influences how you think society as a whole, via the government, should act, because government is the main provider of social goods, not competing organizations.


I don't think that atheism would work in America. We are too individualistic.

Religion promotes society, in my opinion. Americans strive to have no society. Europe recognizes the benefits of society and government. Americans use their religion to bond with one another. American religion is at the root of most of our social movements.

I don't know, those are my scattered thoughts.

sloppy shoes: I don't know, those are my scattered thoughts.

So scattered I don't even understand what you're trying to say...

DamnYankees: sloppy shoes: I don't know, those are my scattered thoughts.

So scattered I don't even understand what you're trying to say...

Hahaha. Sorry.

I was saying that much of what is presented in the "American Ideal" is individualistic, self oriented philosophy.

It has been religion that has promoted the family, various social movements, charity, etc... That's not to say that atheism can't espouse those virtues or that atheists aren't good people; however, I think American religion is our societal binding. We don't have enough of a structure outside of religion to unite us.

Make more sense?

/that's just what I have gathered during my travels. It's a pretty simple analysis though so I hope someone can prove me wrong.

sloppy shoes: Make more sense?

Sure. But I don't buy it. Countries are what the people choose it to be. I see no reason why atheism is opposed to the idea of America. It just so happens that we are religious.

bobette: So - religion offers a moral system but also can excuse bad behaviour, in the name of interpreting the will of an intangible deity, or by offering the fail-safe of eternal redemption.

I agree with everything you have stated, above. But there's element that's missing - the sense of guilt that religion brings to a person's psyche. Guilt, itself, can be a good thing because it makes one reflect on what wrong was done, how that wrong can be corrected and how one can avoid the same behavior that produced the sense of guilt in the first place. But the guilt that some religions create can be insurmountable to some. Rather than reflect, some people become consumed by the wrongfulness of their actions and feel as if they are no longer good enough to belong to their particular religious sect - or for that matter, society as a whole.

DamnYankees: sloppy shoes: Make more sense?

Sure. But I don't buy it. Countries are what the people choose it to be. I see no reason why atheism is opposed to the idea of America. It just so happens that we are religious.

Fair enough.

Either way America is not going to become atheistic over night. Long way to go before it becomes really acceptable.

It's easier to deal with reality when you live in it.

sloppy shoes: I think American religion is our societal binding. We don't have enough of a structure outside of religion to unite us.

I'm working on that....

sloppy shoes: Either way America is not going to become atheistic over night

That's pretty much how it happened in Western Europe, particularly France and the Low Countries, in the late '60s. From then on out it was just a matter of waiting for the older generation to die out.

sloppy shoes: We don't have enough of a structure outside of religion to unite us.

Unite us into what?

I frankly think unity is way overrated. As you note, this country was built on individualism and diversity, not conformity. We shouldn't all be the same, in any way.

I can see where the article is coming from.

There is an us-versus-them dynamic in the United States that fosters that difference between religion here and in Scandinavia, as in the examples. Like on abortion. I think abortion is reprehensible, personally, but I still don't see why that means people who advocate it being available = ZOMG THEY WANT TO MURDER BABIES! And I still think it should be legally available. Instead, we need to work on the underlying causes of unintentional pregnancy, thoroughly fund adoption and sex-ed programs, counseling services, etc.

Instead, a lot of the message the fundamentalist Christians put out is Stop The Baby Murdering!!111, but they refuse to acknowledge or address the problem past that, instead trying to use it as a wedge issue to further their own aims.

Churchill2004: sloppy shoes: We don't have enough of a structure outside of religion to unite us.

Unite us into what?

I frankly think unity is way overrated. As you note, this country was built on individualism and diversity, not conformity. We shouldn't all be the same, in any way.

Unity doesn't have to mean you are all the same. Even people who are religious aren't all the same.

However, there are a good number of benefits that we get by working together, supporting each other, etc...

A good lesson for everybody out of this crisis will be to listen to the journalists who chronicle what happens to the families who lose their houses, jobs, and are left out in the cold. It takes a lot of support to get back to where you were once you fall. Society must strike a balance between individualism and collectivism.

Churchill2004: As you note, this country was built on individualism and diversity

It was? I mean, we've evolved towards this idea, but we we hardly founded on it.

sloppy shoes: Unity doesn't have to mean you are all the same

It has to mean exactly that in some regard.

sloppy shoes: Even people who are religious aren't all the same.

That was kind of my point.

sloppy shoes: However, there are a good number of benefits that we get by working together, supporting each other, etc...

That's cooperation, which is very different from unity. Cooperation is simply people working together, helping each other, etc., and requires no real element of unity to it. "Unity" implies that everyone is working towards some singular goal.

sloppy shoes: Society must strike a balance between individualism and collectivism.

That's not the dichotomy. There's no conflict between individualism and cooperation, between freedom and harmony. The conflict is between individualism and mandatory collectivism.

DamnYankees: It was? I mean, we've evolved towards this idea, but we we hardly founded on it.

The classically liberal republicanism of the Founders was very much built on individual self-determination (if you counted as an individual, which obviously not everyone did).

Churchill2004: The conflict is between individualism and mandatory collectivism.

But who is mandating? Is it invidualism if you are being mandated by your family? By your religion? How about by your morality which was instilled in you by your family and religion?

Churchill2004: DamnYankees: It was? I mean, we've evolved towards this idea, but we we hardly founded on it.

The classically liberal republicanism of the Founders was very much built on individual self-determination (if you counted as an individual, which obviously not everyone did).

Well, maybe, but I think you went to far in throwing 'diversity' in there.

sloppy shoes: bobbette: This actually seems pretty obvious to me.


I don't think that atheism would work in America. We are too individualistic.

Religion promotes society, in my opinion. Americans strive to have no society. Europe recognizes the benefits of society and government. Americans use their religion to bond with one another. American religion is at the root of most of our social movements.

I don't know, those are my scattered thoughts.

sloppy, I like ya but there's a lot of contradictions and incorrect assumptions in that post.

SkinnyHead: Never mind that atheist authoritarian dictatorship regimes murdered 150 million people, Danes' and Swedes'liberal Democracies prove that atheists are really nice people.

Clarified that for you....

DamnYankees: But who is mandating? Is it invidualism if you are being mandated by your family? By your religion? How about by your morality which was instilled in you by your family and religion?

The line would be voluntary vs. forced, I think. You relationships with your family, your religion or lack thereof, even with your own sense of morality are all voluntary. You're free to abandon them without men with guns coming and threatening you. And this is how it is with all charitable relationships as well- working at the soup kitchen, cleaning up litter, donating to the Red Cross, etc.

DamnYankees: Well, maybe, but I think you went to far in throwing 'diversity' in there

I'm not so sure. "Diversity" as we now understand it in terms of race, etc.? No, of course not. But they very much valued the dynamism of a free society; it's diversity of ideas and practices.

bobbette:
I don't know, those are my scattered thoughts.

sloppy, I like ya but there's a lot of contradictions and incorrect assumptions in that post.

Fair enough. I can accept when my thoughts are crazy. ;-)

Churchill2004: The line would be voluntary vs. forced, I think. You relationships with your family, your religion or lack thereof, even with your own sense of morality are all voluntary. You're free to abandon them without men with guns coming and threatening you. And this is how it is with all charitable relationships as well- working at the soup kitchen, cleaning up litter, donating to the Red Cross, etc.

Well, we're getting into a philosophical discussion now as to what is forced and what is not. I don't think I accept the notion that force only exists by via the barren of a gun. I think, for example, women were forced to stay in the home and not become doctors in 1776, but it was not the result of government or physical threat.

Churchill2004: I'm not so sure. "Diversity" as we now understand it in terms of race, etc.? No, of course not. But they very much valued the dynamism of a free society; it's diversity of ideas and practices.

If that's what you meant, then sure.

DamnYankees: Well, we're getting into a philosophical discussion now as to what is forced and what is not. I don't think I accept the notion that force only exists by via the barren of a gun. I think, for example, women were forced to stay in the home and not become doctors in 1776, but it was not the result of government or physical threat.

How was that not the result of physical threat? You think a woman could have just walked out back then? Including taking all her property with her?

Churchill2004: It has to mean exactly that in some regard.

"Human" is a good starting point.

Churchill2004: "Unity" implies that everyone is working towards some singular goal.

Implies to you, at least; however, it is sufficient for social unity to have agreement to some of the means, with most of the ends left to individual choice.

Churchill2004: Including taking all her property with her?

Her? What property?

SkinnyHead: Never mind that atheist regimes murdered 150 million people, Danes and Swedes prove that atheists are really nice people. That certainly makes a lot of sense.

As is typical for the mistaught fundamentalists, you're doing the same thing that you do with evolution: Meekly and blindly accepting the claptrap that your Godbotherer rulers tell you to believe, while ignoring the bounty of evidence which would vitiate your argument.

As always with the Red-baiting Christians, I assume you're talking only about the USSR and Red China, 'cos your argument would fall apart if you were intellectually honest enough to note the US and earlier American colonies (usually claimed by fundies to be Christian, killed or caused the death of about 14 million Indians between the late 1500s and 1900 ), Japan (mostly Shintoist, 5.6 million victims pre and during WWII), China BEFORE they became Godless Reds (around 10 million murders), Rwanda during the mid '90s (about a million Tutsi killed by the Hutu), Belgians in the Congo Free State (8 million native Africans), the Christian Crusades (around a million)...

But I guess none of those count, right? Only the nominally atheist regimes and their (admittedly horrendous) genocides should be noticed, when in reality (oops, THAT thing) it is the case that religion has been the cause of more war, more murder, more genocide, more slaughter, more suffering, more hatred, more torture than any other single concept that humans have ever invented.

So, SkinnyHead: Is religion so bad because humans are nasty and INVENTED religion (and therefore God), or is religion so bad because God is generally a vicious bastard?
Either way works.

Oh...holy.....hell.

This thread will get ugly once it goes full green.

Churchill2004:
sloppy shoes: Society must strike a balance between individualism and collectivism.

That's not the dichotomy. There's no conflict between individualism and cooperation, between freedom and harmony. The conflict is between individualism and mandatory collectivism.

So what is mandatory collectivism?

What if our government votes to enact social programs? What if they achieve a majority of support?

Do you need everybody's approval?

NeverDrunk23: Oh...holy.....hell.

This thread will get ugly once it goes full green.

And it's so polite and relatively calm right now too. It's kinda like watching a tidal wave approach the shore.