Morality of Non-Believers

[Amanda]

Without religion as a control mechanism civilization wouldn't be what it is now. A strong tribal leader can control a tribe, not a nation.

You might be right, though I would say civilization would be a lot better without the religious mechanism of control.

I think, to support your point, one can only speculate.

I think, to support my point, there is a lot of evidence which I included in my earlier post.

When a group is small a powerful leader can hold it together, but as the group grows even the dumbest among them can figure out that if the "peons" band together they can overthrown the leader. This works out fine for small hunter/gatherer type groups.

If the size of the group is to grow some other mechanism MUST be found. Have bad things been done in the name of religions? Of course, but you can say that about just about everything that people have made. So, with that in mind, what mechanism would you think could have held societies together without the bad "side effects"? And what would hold it together now if religion were to go away? Clearly it can't be as simple as everyone just suddenly choosing to be nice to each other and cooperating, because if that worked the world would be a much better place than it is. The only other route that seems even remotely viable is the brutal dictator, which is just an upgraded version of the powerful tribal leader. That approach could work... look at Saddam Hussein, he had a secular government (sorta) and he was very effective at keeping the population in check. But I don't think that's the sort of society you're holding up as a better alternative.

I'm hoping for a really thoughtful answer here, because I think that if you consider this question honestly you may have to re-think your position of religion.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

When a group is small a powerful leader can hold it together, but as the group grows even the dumbest among them can figure out that if the "peons" band together they can overthrown the leader. This works out fine for small hunter/gatherer type groups.

If the size of the group is to grow some other mechanism MUST be found. Have bad things been done in the name of religions? Of course, but you can say that about just about everything that people have made. So, with that in mind, what mechanism would you think could have held societies together without the bad "side effects"? And what would hold it together now if religion were to go away? Clearly it can't be as simple as everyone just suddenly choosing to be nice to each other and cooperating, because if that worked the world would be a much better place than it is. The only other route that seems even remotely viable is the brutal dictator, which is just an upgraded version of the powerful tribal leader. That approach could work... look at Saddam Hussein, he had a secular government (sorta) and he was very effective at keeping the population in check. But I don't think that's the sort of society you're holding up as a better alternative.

I'm hoping for a really thoughtful answer here, because I think that if you consider this question honestly you may have to re-think your position of religion.

Couldn't law also be the social control mechanism? Couldn't those laws be based on observable reality, science, philosophy, and human psychology among other research-based studies? Wouldn't laws based on those things more closely reflect reality and human understanding of reality instead of arbitrary rules like homosexuality is bad, don't eat pork, eat fish on Fridays, women should stay home and have kids, you can't work on Sundays, etc. etc. etc....? Not that these are all laws now, but they have been and could be in a theocracy.

A lot of religious folks like to point to secular governments (which the US government is supposed to be) like the USSR and China and say "See? That's what atheistic governments do." Well, that isn't true. Those governments weren't humanistic or true communists. Stalinism was what the USSR was following Lenin's death (not that it was communism before that) and what Mao Tse Tung did in China was hardly the result of atheism - it was megalomania that caused the deaths of millions in those cultures, not atheism. Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, or any other totalitarian regime would still have committed those atrocities whether they were religious or not. Just look at the Catholic totalitarianism of Spain through the better part of the 20th Century. It had to do with mental illness (like Stalin), or megalomania (like Tung), or simply angry and ruthless overthrow of a priveleged heirarchy (like Lenin), or theocracy (like Iran and Spain). The things that happened then and there weren't the result of atheism, but of a combination of other factors.

Science undermines racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, stereotyping, greed, crimes of the priveleged and wealthy, and ignorance: all things which lead to strife between peoples. Yes, people are imperfect and science won't eradicate evil, but it can help to reduce the evil done by people. I quote I read once, though I can't remember to whom it is attributed loosley reads: A good person will do good things. And evil person will do evil things. But for a good person to do evil things takes religion.

I understand that not all religious people are bad people. In fact, in another thread, I came to better understand why people have faith in their respective religions or spiritual beliefs. That didn't change my mind, however, that religion is personal. It shouldn't be legislated (like teaching creationism in public schools, forcing kids to pray, restricting a woman's right to choose, banning same sex marriage, keeping euthanasia illegal) and it shouldn't be used so that people can justify their actions and seek to dominate or subjugate a group who doesn't hold the same beliefs.

If that were the case now, homosexuals could have same-sex marriages and no one would care! Kids would learn about observable reality in public schools and parents wouldn't feel threatened that their Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist children will be exposed to the teachings of another religion that is sanctioned by the state and therefore made official. Women wouldn't have to be threatened that they might not be able to get an abortion. People who are suffering and dying could die with dignity.

In my opinion, atheists don't believe in an afterlife so they are far less likely to start wars or commit atrocities (except for the insane ones). They are more likely to be tolerant of people's differences (except religion when its forced on others like it is in our nation), and they are more likely to attempt to make the world a better place because its the only place where we can exist. That's just my opinion. But I have faith that atheists tend to be humanistic. And I can't think of any humanist who has done great evil. I can think of many, some that Sky Dancer listed earlier in this thread, who have done great good.

It seems like Christians in this country are attempting to form or transform our government into a theocracy. As an atheist, that scares the shit outta me cause then I might go to jail or be executed for my beliefs. If the government remains secular, then all creeds and religions, all colors and sexual orientations, all kinds of differences can live together fairly harmoniously. That's why Christians think atheists are attacking them. We are reacting to laws that have been passed, are threatening to pass, and could be passed that restrict the rights or liberties of non-believers because those laws are based on the teachings of the Bible and not on scientific research.

 

[Amanda]

When a group is small a powerful leader can hold it together, but as the group grows even the dumbest among them can figure out that if the "peons" band together they can overthrown the leader. This works out fine for small hunter/gatherer type groups.

If the size of the group is to grow some other mechanism MUST be found. Have bad things been done in the name of religions? Of course, but you can say that about just about everything that people have made. So, with that in mind, what mechanism would you think could have held societies together without the bad "side effects"? And what would hold it together now if religion were to go away? Clearly it can't be as simple as everyone just suddenly choosing to be nice to each other and cooperating, because if that worked the world would be a much better place than it is. The only other route that seems even remotely viable is the brutal dictator, which is just an upgraded version of the powerful tribal leader. That approach could work... look at Saddam Hussein, he had a secular government (sorta) and he was very effective at keeping the population in check. But I don't think that's the sort of society you're holding up as a better alternative.

I'm hoping for a really thoughtful answer here, because I think that if you consider this question honestly you may have to re-think your position of religion.

Couldn't law also be the social control mechanism? Couldn't those laws be based on observable reality, science, philosophy, and human psychology among other research-based studies? Wouldn't laws based on those things more closely reflect reality and human understanding of reality instead of arbitrary rules like homosexuality is bad, don't eat pork, eat fish on Fridays, women should stay home and have kids, you can't work on Sundays, etc. etc. etc....? Not that these are all laws now, but they have been and could be in a theocracy.

A lot of religious folks like to point to secular governments (which the US government is supposed to be) like the USSR and China and say "See? That's what atheistic governments do." Well, that isn't true. Those governments weren't humanistic or true communists. Stalinism was what the USSR was following Lenin's death (not that it was communism before that) and what Mao Tse Tung did in China was hardly the result of atheism - it was megalomania that caused the deaths of millions in those cultures, not atheism. Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, or any other totalitarian regime would still have committed those atrocities whether they were religious or not. Just look at the Catholic totalitarianism of Spain through the better part of the 20th Century. It had to do with mental illness (like Stalin), or megalomania (like Tung), or simply angry and ruthless overthrow of a priveleged heirarchy (like Lenin), or theocracy (like Iran and Spain). The things that happened then and there weren't the result of atheism, but of a combination of other factors.

Science undermines racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, stereotyping, greed, crimes of the priveleged and wealthy, and ignorance: all things which lead to strife between peoples. Yes, people are imperfect and science won't eradicate evil, but it can help to reduce the evil done by people. I quote I read once, though I can't remember to whom it is attributed loosley reads: A good person will do good things. And evil person will do evil things. But for a good person to do evil things takes religion.

I understand that not all religious people are bad people. In fact, in another thread, I came to better understand why people have faith in their respective religions or spiritual beliefs. That didn't change my mind, however, that religion is personal. It shouldn't be legislated (like teaching creationism in public schools, forcing kids to pray, restricting a woman's right to choose, banning same sex marriage, keeping euthanasia illegal) and it shouldn't be used so that people can justify their actions and seek to dominate or subjugate a group who doesn't hold the same beliefs.

If that were the case now, homosexuals could have same-sex marriages and no one would care! Kids would learn about observable reality in public schools and parents wouldn't feel threatened that their Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist children will be exposed to the teachings of another religion that is sanctioned by the state and therefore made official. Women wouldn't have to be threatened that they might not be able to get an abortion. People who are suffering and dying could die with dignity.

In my opinion, atheists don't believe in an afterlife so they are far less likely to start wars or commit atrocities (except for the insane ones). They are more likely to be tolerant of people's differences (except religion when its forced on others like it is in our nation), and they are more likely to attempt to make the world a better place because its the only place where we can exist. That's just my opinion. But I have faith that atheists tend to be humanistic. And I can't think of any humanist who has done great evil. I can think of many, some that Sky Dancer listed earlier in this thread, who have done great good.

It seems like Christians in this country are attempting to form or transform our government into a theocracy. As an atheist, that scares the shit outta me cause then I might go to jail or be executed for my beliefs. If the government remains secular, then all creeds and religions, all colors and sexual orientations, all kinds of differences can live together fairly harmoniously. That's why Christians think atheists are attacking them. We are reacting to laws that have been passed, are threatening to pass, and could be passed that restrict the rights or liberties of non-believers because those laws are based on the teachings of the Bible and not on scientific research.

If "law" was enough the world would be a very different place. It's the enforcement of law that makes the diff. That's why religion is so handy for control, you can't escape punishment. That's why harsh leaders like Saddam was effective, the way he enforced the laws.

The laws you mentioned serve or served their purpose at the time.

Isn't a concept like evil sorta out of step with being an atheist?

The laws in this country have been changing away from a Christian point of view for decades and you're worried that there's going to be a Christian takeover?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

If "law" was enough the world would be a very different place. It's the enforcement of law that makes the diff. That's why religion is so handy for control, you can't escape punishment. That's why harsh leaders like Saddam was effective, the way he enforced the laws.

The laws you mentioned serve or served their purpose at the time.

Isn't a concept like evil sorta out of step with being an atheist?

The laws in this country have been changing away from a Christian point of view for decades and you're worried that there's going to be a Christian takeover?

Do you think people don't break the law because they are afraid of eternal punishment? I think most people don't break the law because they find that the law reflects their morality and they don't want to do something wrong and think less of themselves and they don't want to take the chance of going to jail or being official punished in the legal system. I don't even think laws do that much. I think even without laws most people would still behave morally.

I used the word evil to make my point better understandable for you. I don't believe in evil or in wrong. I do believe in good and bad. Killing people is bad, whether done for a good reason or not. Helping children of impoverished or irresponsible parents go to the Doctor is good, even if for bad reasons (which I can't think of any).

I don't think this country is changing to less Christian or more. Roe v Wade may still be in effect but its always threatened. And look at Prop. 8. Don't tell me that non-believers voted for Prop. 8 because it was overwhelmingly religious people who supported it. I feel threatened that as the Christian populace grows, and as Christians tend to vote more than hippies, minorities, and young people (all who tend to be liberal), that my rights and liberties could be restricted due to laws passed by the religious right. Similarly, that fear is why so many liberals left the country when Bush was re-elected. They believed things were only going to get worse. Ever read 1984? Eerily similar to the Bush policies.

Either way, I think control based on ancient books is not healthy. There are books whose information is very recent and based in research. I've read the Bible. I will choose to read those books which contain peer-reviewed information from recent research. I will put more "trust" in that information since it is based in observable reality. I won't dogmatically believe either an ancient book or recently published research.

 

[Diuretic]

You should study anthropology, you might have a better appreciation for religion, and it's absolute necessity to having got us to where we are now. Your idea of religionless morality is too utopian to be workable in the past, now, or the foreseeable future.

I was an anthropology major at University of Colorado, Amanda. Anthropology has little to do with religion unless you are studying cultural anthropology. I also took some history classes. I would say that the millenium following the fall of the Roman Empire, aka the Dark Ages, is a perfect example of my point. The Church controlled everything, especially knowledge. Only monks and clergymen could read, and all reading material was controlled by the church. It wasn't until Martin Luther nailed his protest to the church door that people began to educate themselves and teach themselves to read. They established schools and lo and behold: The Renaissance. Do you know about the library Alexander the Great and Aristotle started in Alexandria? At the fall of the Roman Empire the scholars there knew that the world was round. They knew the Earth revolved around the Sun. They also, and I was really surprised to learn this, had a steam engine. The Church suppressed that information. And, look at what they did to Galileo when he rediscovered those facts.

Of course, then there was western exapansion when native tribes (labeled savages) were routinely massacred and even wiped out because of the Great Commission. Religion considered itself just and righteous and when its adherents committed genocide against the natives of the lands being colonized, the men in charge were considered heroes i.e. Columbus, Cortez, Pizarro and the imperialistic expansion of Europe into Africa and Southeast Asia. Religion was the justification (not the only reason) for the killing, the enslavement, and the suppression of the native cultures. The same goes for Australia and North America in the 19th Century.

....

Not to get off topic but the settlement of Australia in 1788 wasn't driven by religion (nor was its exploration before and after initial European settlement), it was good old British imperialism and wanting to get one over the French.

 

[Diuretic]

Is the behavior really altruistic tho? Isn't it possible that it is just what's in the best interest of the group? Primates engage in a lot of other behaviors, like hunting or war for example, that benefit the group. Couldn't trying to save a member of the group be about not wanting to lose a provider or baby maker? Also, primate groups are very hierarchical, couldn't it be the threat of retribution from the leader that drives behavior?

To be blunt I doubt altruism exists in anyone. I'll cop a spray for that. The group-cohesive behaviours are beneficial for every member of the group so they make sense. If a primate existed that didn't have cooperative behaviours they probably wouldn't continue to exist. All your points make sense to me but I'm no expert in anything.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Not to get off topic but the settlement of Australia in 1788 wasn't driven by religion (nor was its exploration before and after initial European settlement), it was good old British imperialism and wanting to get one over the French.

Conceded. I meant that the way the aborigines were treated afterward was justified by religion. Is that more accurate?

 

[Diuretic]

Not to get off topic but the settlement of Australia in 1788 wasn't driven by religion (nor was its exploration before and after initial European settlement), it was good old British imperialism and wanting to get one over the French.

Conceded. I meant that the way the aborigines were treated afterward was justified by religion. Is that more accurate?

That's an interesting point - but I'd blather on about it and take the thread way off, so I'll confirm (not out of expertise, just sort of common knowledge from living and being educated here) religion was part of the overall oppression of aboriginal people.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Is the behavior really altruistic tho? Isn't it possible that it is just what's in the best interest of the group? Primates engage in a lot of other behaviors, like hunting or war for example, that benefit the group. Couldn't trying to save a member of the group be about not wanting to lose a provider or baby maker? Also, primate groups are very hierarchical, couldn't it be the threat of retribution from the leader that drives behavior?

To be blunt I doubt altruism exists in anyone. I'll cop a spray for that. The group-cohesive behaviours are beneficial for every member of the group so they make sense. If a primate existed that didn't have cooperative behaviours they probably wouldn't continue to exist. All your points make sense to me but I'm no expert in anything.

Altruism exists, although in the human species, and in it's purest form, rarely. I've been fortunate enough to see it in some people.

 

[Diuretic]

Is the behavior really altruistic tho? Isn't it possible that it is just what's in the best interest of the group? Primates engage in a lot of other behaviors, like hunting or war for example, that benefit the group. Couldn't trying to save a member of the group be about not wanting to lose a provider or baby maker? Also, primate groups are very hierarchical, couldn't it be the threat of retribution from the leader that drives behavior?

To be blunt I doubt altruism exists in anyone. I'll cop a spray for that. The group-cohesive behaviours are beneficial for every member of the group so they make sense. If a primate existed that didn't have cooperative behaviours they probably wouldn't continue to exist. All your points make sense to me but I'm no expert in anything.

Altruism exists, although in the human species, and in it's purest form, rarely. I've been fortunate enough to see it in some people.

I'll stick my neck out. Altruism doesn't exist, so-called acts of altruism are actually gratifying to the actor and as such are pure self-indulgence.

I'll happily be proven wrong.

 

[Amanda]

To be blunt I doubt altruism exists in anyone. I'll cop a spray for that. The group-cohesive behaviours are beneficial for every member of the group so they make sense. If a primate existed that didn't have cooperative behaviours they probably wouldn't continue to exist. All your points make sense to me but I'm no expert in anything.

Altruism exists, although in the human species, and in it's purest form, rarely. I've been fortunate enough to see it in some people.

I'll stick my neck out. Altruism doesn't exist, so-called acts of altruism are actually gratifying to the actor and as such are pure self-indulgence.

I'll happily be proven wrong.

I think I pretty much agree with this. Even when things are done for all the right reasons it still makes the do-er feel good so it isn't a behavior without reward.

 

[dilloduck]

Altruism exists, although in the human species, and in it's purest form, rarely. I've been fortunate enough to see it in some people.

I'll stick my neck out. Altruism doesn't exist, so-called acts of altruism are actually gratifying to the actor and as such are pure self-indulgence.

I'll happily be proven wrong.

I think I pretty much agree with this. Even when things are done for all the right reasons it still makes the do-er feel good so it isn't a behavior without reward.

If you identify youself as separate from the whole, altruistic acts are indeed possible.

 

[Amanda]

If "law" was enough the world would be a very different place. It's the enforcement of law that makes the diff. That's why religion is so handy for control, you can't escape punishment. That's why harsh leaders like Saddam was effective, the way he enforced the laws.

The laws you mentioned serve or served their purpose at the time.

Isn't a concept like evil sorta out of step with being an atheist?

The laws in this country have been changing away from a Christian point of view for decades and you're worried that there's going to be a Christian takeover?

Do you think people don't break the law because they are afraid of eternal punishment? I think most people don't break the law because they find that the law reflects their morality and they don't want to do something wrong and think less of themselves and they don't want to take the chance of going to jail or being official punished in the legal system. I don't even think laws do that much. I think even without laws most people would still behave morally.

I used the word evil to make my point better understandable for you. I don't believe in evil or in wrong. I do believe in good and bad. Killing people is bad, whether done for a good reason or not. Helping children of impoverished or irresponsible parents go to the Doctor is good, even if for bad reasons (which I can't think of any).

I don't think this country is changing to less Christian or more. Roe v Wade may still be in effect but its always threatened. And look at Prop. 8. Don't tell me that non-believers voted for Prop. 8 because it was overwhelmingly religious people who supported it. I feel threatened that as the Christian populace grows, and as Christians tend to vote more than hippies, minorities, and young people (all who tend to be liberal), that my rights and liberties could be restricted due to laws passed by the religious right. Similarly, that fear is why so many liberals left the country when Bush was re-elected. They believed things were only going to get worse. Ever read 1984? Eerily similar to the Bush policies.

Either way, I think control based on ancient books is not healthy. There are books whose information is very recent and based in research. I've read the Bible. I will choose to read those books which contain peer-reviewed information from recent research. I will put more "trust" in that information since it is based in observable reality. I won't dogmatically believe either an ancient book or recently published research.

OMG you're verbose...

Many things people don't do because they fear the wrath of a god aren't even illegal (thanks to liberal thinking). It's not illegal to cheat on a spouse, but some people refrain because they made a promise before God. But more to the point, again I don't think the rules are the issue, it's the punishment. Yes, I'm sure the government's wrath keeps some people in line, but people that believe all of their actions are subject to the scrutiny of a higher power are more likely to behave morally if they think there is zero chance to "get away with it".

So, you wouldn't have been in favor or putting a bullet in Hitler's head to save 6 million jews? I think sometimes killing is a necessity. I wouldn't enjoy having to do it, but I think that sometimes it needs to be done.

I think the country is becoming less Christian all the time. Heck some of the Lib posters here start threads about it to rub it in Christians faces. I think that things becoming more and more liberal over time is inevitable, which I think is regrettable. Loss of morality leads to the downfall of civilizations and I think we're on a downward spiral. I've been and still am to a degree caught up in the moral decay that I fear... I struggle with trying to be the person I think I should be daily.

You seem fixated on Christianity. I haven't been talking about Christianity specifically at all in this thread. Ancient books, Scientology whatever... I'm talking about religion as a concept not a specific implementation. I don't quite understand where your idea of "healthy" comes from. I'm talking about reality and possibility. Religion has made the civilization you know possible... that's my point. You may hate some of the things done in the name of a religion, but without it we'd still be living a primitive life in small tribes. Sometimes I think Libs would like to see us return to that type of lifestyle so maybe that's where you're coming from, I dunno.

 

[KittenKoder]

It's the "chicken and egg" argument. Civilization would create religion no matter how right or wrong it is, it's not a need, it's a byproduct of being curious. Most cultures used religion to justify their laws when they first organized governments, not the other way around. The few that didn't use religion to justify their laws used force instead, not much difference between the two anthropologically speaking.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Rationalizing the behavior of one who's shoes you have never walked is a presumptive endeavor. Faith is not a mental exercise.

Um ... if that was aimed at me, need I remind you, I HAVE walked those shoes ... they didn't fit and felt dirty ... so I changed them as soon as I was no longer under the legal control of my mother.

Yeah we're different in that regard. I remember other kids being shocked when I said neither God nor Santa Claus exist in the cafeteria in 1st grade. While I wouldn’t say I honestly believed in God for a moment of my life, I have always wanted to. But then again I’d also like to believe I’m the hottest and smartest person in the world, it’s just not true. If Christians were correct I would be disappointed at how "justice" in the universe works, but I’d rather they be correct than myself.

So if you're an atheist, it's best to make a ton of money by any means possible so you can live the 'good life' before you die.

Okay I know you said it’s a joke, but I’ve heard people say something like what you said in seriousness before, so I’ll respond:

Maybe if money actually brought happiness. I know that's what commercials cause gullible people to think, but I'm not sure if there is any correlation between wealth and happiness, given adequate resources to cover basic needs, at least. People seem to be happy when they lead lives they find meaningful.

Ironically, it was the Protestant Ethic (Calvinist) that contributed to the rise of capitalism. The reasoning went that being blessed with wealth is a sign that God favors you, so the acquisition of capital became a goal whose achievement was highly reassuring. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "paradox" Weber found was, in simple terms:
• According to the new Protestant religions, an individual was religiously compelled to follow a secular vocation with as much zeal as possible. A person living according to this world view was more likely to accumulate money.
• The new religions (in particular, Calvinism and other more austere Protestant sects) effectively forbade wastefully using hard earned money and identified the purchase of luxuries a sin. Donations to an individual's church or congregation was limited due to the rejection by certain Protestant sects of icons. Finally, donation of money to the poor or to charity was generally frowned on as it was seen as furthering beggary. This social condition was perceived as laziness, burdening their fellow man, and an affront to God; by not working, one failed to glorify God.

The manner in which this paradox was resolved, Weber argued, was the investment of this money, which gave an extreme boost to nascent capitalism.

In contrast, the more atheistic Europeans do not seem as focused upon the pursuit of money, legally or illegally given lower crime rates and lower support for pure capitalism.

Jefferson wasn’t an atheist, but he had some wise words on the matter in a letter to his nephew:

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. […]

Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, 1787

When a group is small a powerful leader can hold it together, but as the group grows even the dumbest among them can figure out that if the "peons" band together they can overthrown the leader. This works out fine for small hunter/gatherer type groups.

If the size of the group is to grow some other mechanism MUST be found. Have bad things been done in the name of religions? Of course, but you can say that about just about everything that people have made. So, with that in mind, what mechanism would you think could have held societies together without the bad "side effects"? And what would hold it together now if religion were to go away?

The scientific method and philosophy of humanism would suffice. Its a bit anachronistic to condemn primitive men for not coming up with those ideas earlier, but today there's less of an excuse for things like religion and ultranationalism.

Clearly it can't be as simple as everyone just suddenly choosing to be nice to each other and cooperating, because if that worked the world would be a much better place than it is. The only other route that seems even remotely viable is the brutal dictator, which is just an upgraded version of the powerful tribal leader. That approach could work... look at Saddam Hussein, he had a secular government (sorta) and he was very effective at keeping the population in check. But I don't think that's the sort of society you're holding up as a better alternative.

While I think Jesus was insane, I do think he had a great point when he asked that those torturing and killing him be forgiven because they know not what they do. Evil actions have a basis in ignorance. For example, the false idea that money will make you happy. Not understanding that pillaging and plundering is an inefficient (in the long-run), unsustainable, and risky way to improve your quality of life.

Yes, I do believe that there's a kind of intelligence that can be fostered on a societal level that has to do with morality. You don't have to make up imaginary and ruthless beings that act like mythical Saddams in the sky to get people as a whole to behave. Individual ignorant assholes, religious or not, will always be a problem.

Religion is not even a good mechanism for encouraging morality. As Coloradomtnman alluded to, war is a much more serious thing for people who don’t believe in an afterlife. If you die, you’re gone. In contrast, Christians and Muslims believe that good people who die are getting a one-way-ticket to bliss. So once the short-term suffering is over, senseless death becomes a positive thing sending the wicked to hell and the righteous to heaven early.

OMG you're verbose...

Many things people don't do because they fear the wrath of a god aren't even illegal (thanks to liberal thinking). It's not illegal to cheat on a spouse, but some people refrain because they made a promise before God.

Of course I'd rather not be cheated on, but I would not want to be married to somebody who avoids cheating on me because they made a promise to their imaginary friend. If that's all that is holding them back, and we don't have kids, it's time for divorce. Furthermore, do you have stats that show Christians cheat on their spouses less than non-Christians or are you assuming that due to bias?

But more to the point, again I don't think the rules are the issue, it's the punishment. Yes, I'm sure the government's wrath keeps some people in line, but people that believe all of their actions are subject to the scrutiny of a higher power are more likely to behave morally if they think there is zero chance to "get away with it".

I really don't think the government's wrath keeps people in line very often, it just removes those people who continuously show they are unwilling to stay in line. Deterrence Theory has its limitations, particularly because the rate of getting caught is rarely high enough for deterrence to operate.

Of course your argument doesn't apply to Christians. They don't believe people are saved by "being good," they think everybody is immoral and sinful enough to not make it into heaven without Jesus. So whether you're a murderer or a philanthropist, you're fucked without Jesus. The unsophisticated people we might be interested in controlling can very well come to believe that they can be as evil as they want so long as they repent later.

I think the country is becoming less Christian all the time. Heck some of the Lib posters here start threads about it to rub it in Christians faces. I think that things becoming more and more liberal over time is inevitable, which I think is regrettable. Loss of morality leads to the downfall of civilizations and I think we're on a downward spiral. I've been and still am to a degree caught up in the moral decay that I fear... I struggle with trying to be the person I think I should be daily.

The country is getting more polarized. More insanely zealous Christians and overt atheists alike. I make it no secret who I hope will win, but I hope it won't get violent.

 

[Yukon]

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth;

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.


I believe because I am YUKON !

 

[Sky Dancer]

To be blunt I doubt altruism exists in anyone. I'll cop a spray for that. The group-cohesive behaviours are beneficial for every member of the group so they make sense. If a primate existed that didn't have cooperative behaviours they probably wouldn't continue to exist. All your points make sense to me but I'm no expert in anything.

Altruism exists, although in the human species, and in it's purest form, rarely. I've been fortunate enough to see it in some people.

I'll stick my neck out. Altruism doesn't exist, so-called acts of altruism are actually gratifying to the actor and as such are pure self-indulgence.

I'll happily be proven wrong.

Pure altruism is extremely rare. I've met some teacher of Buddhism who I think fall into this category. To be fair to your point, by definition, human beings are a mix of qualities. There can be self-interest in benefiting others. I think the only reason to act in any way at all is either to benefit self or others and preferabliy both. If you truly believe all beings have buddha nature or essential purity--then you must include yourself, until a true state of selflessness is achieved. I further postulate that actually pure selflessness would still include self in the field of equanimity.

Those with true altruism great bodhisattvas. They have already realized enlightenment, they have seen through the ego, and yet they take rebirth over and over to benefit others. They don't 'relax into final nirvana'.

I consider Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche to have been such a great bodhisattva.

 

[Yukon]

Is altrusim the same as being retarded like RainMan?

 

[KittenKoder]

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth;

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.


I believe because I am YUKON !

I BELIEVE you are an uneducated twit bare old enough to be considered human.

 

[AllieBaba]

Humanity comes with a minimum age requirement?

KK, sometimes your hatred of children galls me.