What would a world entirely populated by Atheist be like? (Egyptian, priests)

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Again nothing to do with me, not my choice, and I honestly do not care. I am just pointing out that IF you do choose to post then there is a certain level of expectation laid on you to actually engage in discussions, not post one liner replies that ignore everything the person actually said.

If you wish not to reply to me.... simply do not hit reply. Simples.

Is there anythingelse that you would like me to do?

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Most likely. There are very strong evolutionary reasons for why we would have religious inclinations and tendencies for example. Also in a moral world where we want people to subscribe to the morality we espouse it is natural to try and bolster the strength of our claims by inventing a deity and pretending this all powerful all wise being just happens to agree with us.

But to do so is harmful. Inventing a deity and grounding an objective morality in it closes down conversation. Morality and ethics need to be fluid to change with changing times. In a world of medical and technological breakthroughs the likes of which bronze aged peasantry can not even dream of, it makes little sense to refer to bronze age morality in the discussion of it.



I think its "role" is marginal however. Aside from bolstering ones moral opinion by inventing an imaginary friend who agrees with yourself... I am not sure religion played all that important a role at all. In fact as we can see often it is often more detrimental to the process than helpful.

As has been pointed out for example there is not a morally good action performed, or ethical statement made ever that a religious person can or would perform that is somehow precluded from an atheist or nonbeliever. The role of religion in morality is over inflated, usually by the religious. The most religion appears to have done on the subject of morality however is to successfully associate itself in peoples minds on the subject and to benefit by proxy. Religion does better from morality than morality ever did from religion.



Speak for yourself.

I don't think it's role is 'marginal' at all. Religion and culture is often inseparable. Think of all that Western culture is; from our given names, to the holidays we celebrate - all religion.

Religion is harmful when it turns militant - Islam or some violent Christian Fundamentalists or institutionalized Religion (which doesn't even follow the moral precepts of religion). Now I will agree that some of what happened in the Old Testament did seem morally questionable, but would the Hebrews have been any more morals without God? No, it would be someone else speaking for them. I do find the whole idea of God ordering slaughter etc disturbing but when you look at it, only a minority of genocides have been because 'God told them to do it' outside some parts of the OT.

Well if there was no concept of murder being 'wrong', how would an atheist be able to live up to that standard in the first place?

Some societies don't see murder as wrong, so it's relative. What makes you think atheism would lead to a moral, peaceful society? I'm not saying it can't, but it's no more likely than a theistic one doing so.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

I don't think it's role is 'marginal' at all.

Then by all means establish otherwise. I would read through your arguments and citations and evidences. Just saying it plays a role however does not make it true. There simply is nothing in morality that I have been shown that requires religion or theist thought to support. People just put it in retrospectively and have been doing so for so long that they have become intertwined in the minds of people like yourself. Yet when people like yourself are actually asked to show where morality benefits from religion you just hummm and hahhhh and make non sequitur references to how some holidays have religious over tones.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Religion and culture is often inseparable. Think of all that Western culture is; from our given names, to the holidays we celebrate - all religion.

That supports me not you. The position I hold is that religion has successfully managed to associate itself with aspects of culture and the human condition. The things that are important to us, it associates itself with and benefits from it. It does not actually add much to it however. We would have names, and holiday and more without religion. The names and reasons would just be different.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Well if there was no concept of murder being 'wrong', how would an atheist be able to live up to that standard in the first place?

Quite easily. I do not want to be murdered. I do not want anyone I care about to be murdered. Therefore the best society for me to be a member of is one where murder is on the list of "do not do" actions. Simple as that. What requirement for objectivity or imaginary sky fairies is there to establish that? None that I can see, even though some people want to invent such in order to ground the moral opinion they formed for perfectly good reasons already.

As I said before, we have a shared human conditions and shared human concerns. That is as real and useful a basis for a shared moral system as any other I have seen coming from religion.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Some societies don't see murder as wrong

Which ones, where, and how well are they doing by most of the standards by which we now measure societies and human well being?

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Then by all means establish otherwise. I would read through your arguments and citations and evidences. Just saying it plays a role however does not make it true. There simply is nothing in morality that I have been shown that requires religion or theist thought to support. People just put it in retrospectively and have been doing so for so long that they have become intertwined in the minds of people like yourself. Yet when people like yourself are actually asked to show where morality benefits from religion you just hummm and hahhhh and make non sequitur references to how some holidays have religious over tones.



That supports me not you. The position I hold is that religion has successfully managed to associate itself with aspects of culture and the human condition. The things that are important to us, it associates itself with and benefits from it. It does not actually add much to it however. We would have names, and holiday and more without religion. The names and reasons would just be different.



Quite easily. I do not want to be murdered. I do not want anyone I care about to be murdered. Therefore the best society for me to be a member of is one where murder is on the list of "do not do" actions. Simple as that. What requirement for objectivity or imaginary sky fairies is there to establish that? None that I can see, even though some people want to invent such in order to ground the moral opinion they formed for perfectly good reasons already.

As I said before, we have a shared human conditions and shared human concerns. That is as real and useful a basis for a shared moral system as any other I have seen coming from religion.



Which ones, where, and how well are they doing by most of the standards by which we now measure societies and human well being?

I'm no expert...Greek humanist philosophers did devise systems of ethics, but there wasn't a widespread consistent morality in the West until the introduction of Christianity in the late Roman era. Unfortunately, religion soon became corrupted.

It's easy to say that from an enlightened modern perspective. Western civilization wouldn't exist without religion, with all it's contributions and faults. If you lived in a primitive society, killing and death would be part and parcel of daily living (some of those societies where murder isn't considered innately wrong). It's not so easy to just stay out of it because of your personal views. For some reason, humans have a natural inclination to kill each other. I'm pacifist myself, so often I don't get it, but history has shown it to be true, regardless of the presence of religion.

[Trimac20]

I don't deny atheists could devise their own moral systems, but ultimately, altruism is relative enough in human nature. I don't think we should force religion or threaten people with punishment if they don't behave, but historically morality seems tied to a system of reward/punishment, whether that be karma or divine retribution.

[LindavG]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

I'm no expert...Greek humanist philosophers did devise systems of ethics, but there wasn't a widespread consistent morality in the West until the introduction of Christianity in the late Roman era. Unfortunately, religion soon became corrupted.

Morality has never been consistent. However, to say that Christianity "introduced" morality to the West is simply false. It may have altered the existing morals in some way but all societies require codes of "acceptable behaviour" in order to function. I still don't see how religion soon became "corrupted". Have you actually read the Bible and all the atrocities that are committed in it, particularly in the OT? You should be glad we don't take our morals and ethics straight from that book but "corrupted" it, as you say.

It's easy to say that from an enlightened modern perspective. Western civilization wouldn't exist without religion, with all it's contributions and faults.

Of course it would. It may have been different but we wouldn't know anything else so we wouldn't have "missed" religion anyway.

If you lived in a primitive society, killing and death would be part and parcel of daily living (some of those societies where murder isn't considered innately wrong). It's not so easy to just stay out of it because of your personal views. For some reason, humans have a natural inclination to kill each other. I'm pacifist myself, so often I don't get it, but history has shown it to be true, regardless of the presence of religion.

Again, this is just nonsense and completely contradicts the evolution of our species (and other species). I'd like to see some sources to back up these claims.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

Is there anythingelse that you would like me to do?

I have little faith that you will manage what I have said already, so I see no utility in adding anything more complicated at this time. When you are ready to go back to the topic of the thread and reply to what I actually wrote on it however I am all ears.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

I'm no expert...Greek humanist philosophers did devise systems of ethics, but there wasn't a widespread consistent morality in the West until the introduction of Christianity in the late Roman era. Unfortunately, religion soon became corrupted.

If that were true then you would be reducing Religion to nothing more than successful packaging. However I think you will find it is more complex than that and moral systems and religions were both spread by those with the capability to do so, rather than one being responsible for the spread of the other.

I repeat, it is no small issue that there is nothing in morality that requires gods, religions or anything. This should ring alarm bells that the causal link between moral systems and religions might not be what you think it is.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Western civilization wouldn't exist without religion

Says you, but aside from repeating the claim a couple of times I am not seeing anything from you actually establishing it. You said some societies think murder is ok and I asked you which ones. I got no answer. This is telling. Nor do I think the natural inclination to kill each other is as strong as you think. Again I repeat: Speak for yourself.

Originally Posted by Trimac20

I don't deny atheists could devise their own moral systems, but ultimately, altruism is relative enough in human nature.

So is anything produced by religion. The golden rule for example really is only as good as the person saying it. Before you accept "do unto others what you want them to do to you" as a valid argument for example it might be worth finding out what the speaker likes having done to himself. The golden rule espoused by the willing German homosexual cannibal victim that made the news in recent years would be a truely terrifying moral prospect. Masochists espousing the golden rule would not be the go to people for implementing it.

Again however we have a shared existence and condition as a species. Our common basis is more than enough to base a moral and ethical system on and therefore I see no truth in the fantasy that civilisation would not have existed without religion.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

I don't deny atheists could devise their own moral systems, but ultimately, altruism is relative enough in human nature. I don't think we should force religion or threaten people with punishment if they don't behave, but historically morality seems tied to a system of reward/punishment, whether that be karma or divine retribution.

A word from my favorite philosopher.....

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.
Bertrand Russell

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I have little faith that you will manage what I have said already, so I see no utility in adding anything more complicated at this time. When you are ready to go back to the topic of the thread and reply to what I actually wrote on it however I am all ears.

We are different, me and you; I take no concern about how you will manage what I have already said in thread;

And I don't allow others to manage what I am going to say.

But I will listen.