Atheists... Your life is pointless

@Setanta,

OK--but what does the personal relationship with God consist of?

One has to assume that the shrunken heads, the scalps and the loot from the devastations of distant cities and provinces were approved of by the tribal gods.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Do you think it is possible for a religion to be sociologically benign?

Benign in what way?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I think that separation is very difficult, but it may be important.
I tend to think that religions are a part of the social condition, perhaps because belief is a part of the human condition.
If religions are an emergent behavior of societies, and that emergent behavior seems to be inevitable (as evidenced by every society I know of having religions), then perhaps we need to look at religions in and of themselves.
If we can't eliminate religion we may have to content ourselves with learning how to ensure that those religions don't lead to harm.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Benign in the sense of not being sociologically harmful.
Benign in the sense of not leading a society toward self-destruction.
Benign in the sense of not creating greater harm to the members of society, than would exist in its absence.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

You wrote,

Quote:

If religions are an emergent behavior of societies, and that emergent behavior seems to be inevitable (as evidenced by every society I know of having religions), then perhaps we need to look at religions in and of themselves.

That's been an on-going pursuit of humans from the time when man first questioned his own existence. That's the reason why different cultures created different gods and religions.

0 Replies

Many, many societies, thousands of societies have had nothing which we would recognize as an organized religion. A belief in a spirit world is probably the most common manifestation of human superstition playing on the natural ignorance of mankind. That does not mean, however, that organized religion inevitably follows. In ancient China, the ruling classes believed in a spirit world, and often acted obsessively to assure their place in that spirit world after death. If you know about the terra cotta army, then you know of one of the most obsessive manifestations of the belief in a spirit-world afterlife. But there was no organized priesthood (charlatans abounded and thrived), nor any religious establishment. The ruling class didn't give a rat's ass what happened to peasants, in this life or the next. There was no requirement to believe or espouse a creed, which is why Confucius was so influential. There was no overarching dogma which included moral prescriptions. Confucius introduced the ideas of personal and public morality and probity. In the absence of any religious moral dogma, Confucius had a profound effect on Chinese society,

I could go on for pages about this, but i'll simply point out that what you are describing is a popular, but deeply flawed view of how religions originate, how they operate and their inevitability.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Those definitions are all tautological Matt. And they involve a degree of fortune telling.

Was it benign for American aboriginals when they were rounded up and marginalised? It was for those who took their land and exploited the massive resources it contained and are on the point of exhausting them.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

You seem to now be taking the definition of religion to be "organized religion".
I was under the impression from the discussion up to this point that we were speaking of religions to also include manifestations such as you are describing.
There are plenty of religions which coexist within different strata of societies.
You might also include the differing Hindu beliefs among different classes in India.
I am not speaking of a universalized belief system across an entire society.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Is not "deeply flawed" circular. Who says that view is deeply flawed and why?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Those are definitely NOT benign manifestations of religions.
My question was if their can be such a thing as a benign religion.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

My question was if their can be such a thing as a benign religion.

Seems to me the answer to that is: Sure!

YOU could create a new religion with a main precept being "Do not ever do anything that might have a negative effect on society in the name of this religion"; have the second be: Never accept any other members into this religion"...and then make sure YOU follow precept number one.

Unless you screw up...it could be a benign religion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Thanks Frank. Very Happy

Wouldn't such a religion also need to include how to interact with non-members?

For instance if there is another "competing" religion that says the benign religion is evil and must be stopped. All followers of competing religion are obligated to oppose benign religion and either convert or slay their adherents.

This seems very equivalent to how does a "good" person interact with a "bad" one?

Frank wrote:

Unless you screw up...it could be a benign religion.

How not to screw up? Wink

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5258893)
Thanks Frank.

Wouldn't such a religion also need to include how to interact with non-members?

If you worry about how to interact with non-members...you will be answering your last question.

The ONLY way I can think of for a religion to be benign (by design) is to keep membership to one member...and to have that one member only do things that will not impact negatively on the rest of humanity...

...like go outside!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

..like go outside!

Sadly I can't incorporate that aspect into my religion at the moment.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5258913)
Quote:
..like go outside!

Sadly I can't incorporate that aspect into my religion at the moment.

Well you did want one that would be benign!

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Those definitions are all tautological Matt. And they involve a degree of fortune telling.

Yes I agree they are. This is the problem of utilitarianism. It needs to first assign where to place value.
The problem of axiology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiology

Exploring THAT problem in this thread.

Quote:

http://able2know.org/topic/207752-11#post-5254713

Love to hear what you think.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5258913)
Quote:
..like go outside!

Sadly I can't incorporate that aspect into my religion at the moment.

Well you did want one that would be benign!

Touche! Personal circumstances, first world problems.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

I am not speaking of a universalized belief system across an entire society.

In which case, Matt, the fragmentations of anything else run to such lengths that talking about the subject becomes absurd.

A universalized belief system might be said to be defining of a society as opposed to an aggregate. That easily applies to the Society of Authors who believe that copyright laws are benign. It is a belief. I think the S of A would excommunicate anybody who promoted another belief.

BTW--you might have noticed that certain parties to these discussions don't respond to my posts. In effect they have me on Ignore.

But all the things I say are well known. They are not original ideas of mine. My way of expressing them might be said to be original but we are all unique in that respect. And there are sources for my ideas. Books, films, stuff.

So really, it is those sources these guys have on Ignore. Not me. I'm just a convenient scapegoat so that the full opprobrium of being in the discussion whilst having all those sources on Ignore, because they have no answer to them, does not seem to attach to them when observers are in the particular state they must expect them to be in order to try to get away with a simple trick of that nature.

Their problem is that they cannot admit that atheists have to think all life is pointless. Thiests, deists, dentists, constitutionalists, atheists and Tom Cobbleyists. The lot. They know that to admit such a thing would make them unpopular. And they know that undermining Christian sexual morality is popular.

Any other sophistry about giving life a point applies to pigs, wasps and wackaloons.

Bringing other religious forms into the discussion has only one result--a muddle. Especially when they are brought in without any reference to the sexual mores they embrace.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

My question was if their can be such a thing as a benign religion.

I would say not. It is a struggle for existence. Religion can only ameliorate that fact. Find a docility/aggression balance which best serves.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
I am not speaking of a universalized belief system across an entire society.

In which case, Matt, the fragmentations of anything else run to such lengths that talking about the subject becomes absurd.
Quote:

I agree that it very very complicated.
Absurd?
Maybe but no more absurd than what is trying to be gained by the study of systems analysis.

Quote:
BTW--you might have noticed that certain parties to these discussions don't respond to my posts. In effect they have me on Ignore.

That's a shame. They're missing out on a lot of insights, and some great writing style (I envy you that).

Quote:
Any other sophistry about giving life a point applies to pigs, wasps and wackaloons.

Ironically my sophistry has lead me to admit that all these animals also have a point.

Quote:
Bringing other religious forms into the discussion has only one result--a muddle.

Also a shame. Considering what a huge role religions play in our lives, both directly and indirectly.

Quote:
Especially when they are brought in without any reference to the sexual mores they embrace.

Sometimes I get the impression that sexual mores is something you really like to talk about. I wonder why I get that impression?

I know I somehow messed up the "quote" structure, but to use a sexual idiom, **** it.

1 Reply

Atheists... Your life is pointless

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know