Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 11:10 pm
I thank God every day that i'm an atheist.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:04 am
@panzade,
Quote:
Emile Durkheim distilled religion into four major functions:
1. Disciplinary, forcing or administrating discipline
2. Cohesive, bringing people together, a strong bond
3. Vitalizing, to make livelier or vigorous, vitalise, boost spirit
4. Euphoric, a good feeling, happiness, confidence, well-being

I'm good with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim#Religion


I hardly think it appropriate for you to bring up Emile Durkheim on a thread such as this pan. His position is nearly identical to mine.

Many years ago I was, for a period , a sociology lecturer and often used Durkheim in my expositions. I took up the subject after getting bored with science.

Perhaps some of the infantilism on here will disappear if contributors read your link with attention. One would hardly wish for a society in which the four functions you list are not satisfied to a reasonable extent. And the only alternative to religion in acheiving that is a dictator or state machine which directs the objectives to the ends of power politics and thus provides the logic Orwell used.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:28 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
He did this by interviewing people, presenting them with moral dilemas, and asking them how they would resolve them.


But the people he interviewed were already socialised. Atheism conditioned by a religious socialisation is not the same as atheism conditioned exclusively by materialist, scientific principles.

Atheists here are having a free ride by complacently ignoring this distinction. They are all Christian atheists. A bit like a golfer who wears plus-fours or a young lady who has nose rings. The essentials are standard but with a striking cosmetic effect.

Quote:
compares life in the USA to life in the least religious societies on Earth, and finds that people in non-religious societies live fulfilled, ethical lives just the same.


Yes--people in N.Korea do look quite like the rest of us. The ones we see at least. But the porn from that general area lacks interest. It seems to feature squeaks rather than sighs and moanings.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:33 am
@edgarblythe,
Brilliant Ed.

"Complex balancing act", "sometimes", "in a strange way", "good", "unique", etbloodycetera. What a load of fanny. A publisher's blurb. How to sell flattened out wood pulp with ink inserts to a bunch of self improvers of the lower middle class.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 05:38 am
@littlek,
Quote:
Sigh


Kay--you should have made clear that you wanted to limit the discussion to the sharing of ideas you are already familiar and comfortable with.
aidan
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 06:02 am
@spendius,
Quote:
limit the discussion to the sharing of ideas you are already familiar and comfortable with.


as you obviously are with Korean porn Laughing Laughing .
Is it moral for a Christian to know porn to the point they can compare and contrast sound effects among different nations?

And what's the atheistic moral stance on Korean porn?

Laughing Laughing (sorry- couldn't resist).

Quote:
But the people he interviewed were already socialised. Atheism conditioned by a religious socialisation is not the same as atheism conditioned exclusively by materialist, scientific principles.

But what you wrote (above) is an interesting point and taken together with this:
Quote:
Disciplinary, forcing or administrating discipline
Cohesive, bringing people together, a strong bond
Vitalizing, to make livelier or vigorous, vitalise, boost spirit
Euphoric, a good feeling, happiness, confidence, well-being


it does beg the question as to what a society might look like if that bonding, tempering, uplifting and community building aspect is no longer present- even within recent memory.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 06:14 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:
But what you wrote (above) is an interesting point and taken together with this:
Quote:
Disciplinary, forcing or administrating discipline
Cohesive, bringing people together, a strong bond
Vitalizing, to make livelier or vigorous, vitalise, boost spirit
Euphoric, a good feeling, happiness, confidence, well-being


it does beg the question as to what a society might look like if that bonding, tempering, uplifting and community building aspect is no longer present- even within recent memory.


It is rather witless to assume that such social attributes will not be present without religion--and is indicative of the bigotry of the religious to suggest it. For example, tribalism can produce exactly the same effects--witness the atavistic German nationalism of the late 19th century. The result of the that tribalism was the military state which attacked Denmark in 1864, Austria in 1866 and France in 1870; and which marched to war with Austria in 1914 without any consideration of whether or not there were any justice in Austria's cause.

I am reminded of that popular claptrap of Edmund Burke's which people are so fond of quoting, to the effect that the only thing necessary for evil to prosper is that good men do nothing. People get all giddy and quote that, without considering practical questions such as what is defined as evil, what it is intended be done, and who are the allegedly good men to do it.

The same thing applies here--all that looks plausible, but it isn't axiomatic that those effects will necessarily be good for society, nor is it established that such effects will on arise in the presence of organized religion.
aidan
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 06:18 am
@Setanta,
I didn't suggest or assume anything. I said, 'it begs the question'. That means, I'm wondering, as in I'm curious as to what such a society might resemble because in my own life, I have only lived in societies that have been founded on Christian doctrine.

Maybe you already know - I don't. I remain curious - without assuming or suggesting anything.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 06:25 am
@aidan,
And i didn't say that you suggested or assumed anything. I was referring to the drivel which you quoted, which does suggest and assume. Try not to be so damned thin-skinned.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 06:27 am
@Setanta,
Well I got it from Panzade - blame him for the drivel....although in my experience that approximates what I derive from religion pretty well.

Thin skinned...yeah...that's me alright. Laughing Laughing (that's a joke by the way)
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 06:36 am
@aidan,
The source is not relevant. If that's what you get from religion, i pity you. Those attributes are not demonstrated to be good for society, apart from the fact that it is not demonstrated that such attributes can only be derived from religion.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 06:51 am
An atheistic society that is planned and perhaps dictated would not be particularly effective or well recepted. If it comes about at all, it will be because the public no longer falls for the religionist crap. It would be a natural progression people might not even notice at first. Much would remain the same. What would a society that is free from dogma be like? We have not had such to compare. We can infer and project. But we might be wrong.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 06:55 am
Actually, EB, i think we do have an example, or very nearly. The United States is not bound together as a community by religion, nor by atavistic tribalism. We have many, separate religious traditions, and come from many ethnic backgrounds. A majority atheist secular state would, it seems to me, simply remove one very significant cause of social tension and potential strife.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 07:00 am
@aidan,
Quote:
lived in societies that have been founded on Christian doctrine.


Try living in the US as a large percent of the founding fathers was Deists not good old Christians and they model the society after the early Roman Republic.

As the Treaty of Tripoli that were negotiated by the Washington and Adam administrations and then rarefy by congress stated:

Treaty of Tripoli 1797


As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 07:05 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Those attributes are not demonstrated to be good for society
,
in what way are they not good?
Quote:
apart from the fact that it is not demonstrated that such attributes can only be derived from religion.

I know that. Music is another transcendent for me- and I'm sure everyone else has their own methods of transcendence. The only difference is what people call those gifts of transcendence and to what they attribute them.

But the fact remains that what spendius said is true - we don't know what an atheistic society that arises from the total absence of the remnants of one founded on judeo/christian (or other) religious teachings would be like.



Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 07:15 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:
. . . in what way are they not good?


Were you not paying attention? I don't like to invoke Godwin's law, but let me put this for you more stark terms. These same attributes can be seen in Franco's Falange, Mussolini's Fascisti and Hitler's National Socialists.

Besides, i didn't say that they aren't good, just that it is not axiomatic that they will be good. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

Quote:
But the fact remains that what spendius said is true - we don't know what an atheistic society that arises from the total absence of the remnants of one founded on judeo/christian (or other) religious teachings would be like.


I have already pointed out that the society of the United States is not founded upon a common religion or common ethnic origins. I don't read the posts by Spurious, not the least of the reasons for which is that i have never known him to deal in truth.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 07:36 am
@aidan,
Quote:
Is it moral for a Christian to know porn to the point they can compare and contrast sound effects among different nations?


Oh yes. Most certainly.

Quote:
And what's the atheistic moral stance on Korean porn?


An atheist can't have a moral stance. He can pretend to have to try to hide his fear of the law or the disapproval of his neighbours. Fear is thought unmanly you see.

Quote:
it does beg the question as to what a society might look like if that bonding, tempering, uplifting and community building aspect is no longer present- even within recent memory.


Speculations have studied the matter. Brave New World. 1984. Clockwork Orange. The Marquis de Sade. Eraserhead.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 07:44 am
@aidan,
Setanta has me on Ignore Rebecca so he hasn't seen my sentance about dictators and state machines.

That's why he has me on Ignore. It is in order to proceed as if nobody else is in the debate except himself and those he agrees with.

He asserts that you are "thin-skinned" and having people on Ignore denotes the thinnest skin of all. He likes to use words like that and words like "drivel" and "claptrap".

Take no notice. Few people do. He's only interesting as a typical exemplar of an atheist.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:18 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
What would a society that is free from dogma be like? We have not had such to compare.


But we do have individual responses to freedom from dogma. The Song of Songs for example in the Bible which only naughty people read as Nancy Mitford discovered. There's "A Rapture" by Thomas Carew written in the 17th century. Ovid to some extent. And, of course, the works of the Marquis de Sade who had the same forename as the hero in the movie Alfie. The American version was more acceptable to polite opinion than the English one in which Michael Caine played the part. The seedy, nihilistic desolation was sweetened a bit.

One simple follows ruthlessly the pleasure principle and allows that the other 301 million Americans will do the same. If that's no good and religion is no good then the State will have to control the matter using laws which become increasingly draconian as they are ignored. Other than that the PP has complete sway.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:26 am
@aidan,
Have you noticed Rebecca that the posts and conversations of people who use words like "witless", "drivel" "crap" and "bullshit" are posited on those words being scientifically accurate.

Once they are not then the rest of the post becomes meaningless. It's called "circularity on one revolution". That's the simplest sort of circularity.

Like the Idiot Wind

"Blowin' in a circle round my skull,
From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol"
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 40
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/09/2021 at 02:50:14