Could a society of atheists only, function?

We know that religious societies have functioned for thousands of years - some good, some bad. But are there any examples of a lasting society based on nothing?

oh dear get ready for a bun fight

the key words alone [like define society]
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB&defl=en&q=define:society&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
quote
A long-standing group of people sharing cultural aspects such as language, dress, norms of behavior and artistic forms;

A group of people who meet from time to time to engage in a common interest;

The sum total of all voluntary interrelations between individuals; The people of one’s ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/society

Brothers, priests and sisters make profession in a chosen religious order/ institute / society, and commit themselves to sharing fully in its life and mission, according to the charism of its founder. ...
news.diocesessm.org/getTemplate

(Gesellschaft) is the continuing rational relationship.
www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/outline/outline_basic_concept.html

Group of people who share a common set of values and norms.
enbv.narod.ru/text/Econom/ib/str/261.html

wont even get into the different societies of athiest belief
[nor the xtian sects [societies]
end quote

as to which is needed more
is to infur all the members of any particular society are all equally good [or bad]
or equally gifted or EQUALLY skilled [an impossability]

but its not the political or religious divides that are NEEDED more than the other
[but that 'the society' [or rather all the members of this given society respect all its members equally and fairly ,not judging any other better or worse.

valueing the diverent athiest disbeliefs [or religious messenger's message] arround common core beliefs
that shall be enacted to the equnamity of societies advantages equally benneficient to all.

Well, societies don't believe in Christ have lasted for thousands of years. Not many societies that believe in Christ have lasted more than a few hundred. Only the belief in Jesus has lasted, but even then the ideals that he stood for have been reinterpreted to suit the times that his believers find themselves in. So, realistically atheism will be around a lot longer than any belief in God or Christ.

Eventually a society that bases itself on atheism as a natural progression of societal evolution will happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

It is a good question.
But can you take the answer?
I am convinced some who claim to be Christians do not believe a God exists.
How could church leaders miss use children if they thought God was watching?
The fact is we live under many books of religion, not just the bible.
Do not ignore the fact over half the world has a different God.
And do not tell me in their own way those people have been hurt as much as helped by those Gods.
The common thread is fear and the idea that you must not question your God.
Blindly follow him/her or those who lead in that name.
With no doubt at all Believe man is removing the chains that have enslaved so many and we no longer need.
Religion divides it was intended to do so.

To answer your question perhaps what we need is people (regardless of personal belief) who believe in freedom, democracy and a willingness to make society better.

Clearly at the present time we need both - society has a long way to go before it becomes uncomfortable with mass delusion. As an atheist I prefer to deal with truth and believe society would be better for doing so. By truth I don't mean absolute truths but even admitting you don't know everything is a truth.

Man was around long before someone invented the Christian (and other) versions of the supernatural.

You only have to read some of the comments on OLO to realise that many who hold various religious beliefs perceive they could not function in the same way without the moral compass or set of rules provided by their God.

An atheistic society is some way off yet and will evolve slowly. This may not be a bad thing - change is better done slowly. History shows us that sudden change often brings about more despots, fundamentalism and ultimately less freedoms.

BUGGY says:

"Not many societies that believe in Christ have lasted more than a few hundred. Only the belief in Jesus has lasted,"

Quite a salient point Bugsy.

Jesus supports you 100%

"My kingdom is not of this world, if it were so, my followers would fight to defend me" Matt 18:36

You see.. our Lord's objective was transformed humanity, not to establish a particular political system.

Yes.. undoubtedly He knew that embracing him would bring in a new SOCIAL system...i.e. "Do for others as you would have them do for you" but he also gave it the foundation which takes it out of the realm of 'wishful thinking' to divine mandate by also underlining the MOST important commandment "Love God with all your heart"

The former..follows from the latter.

I think the natural outcome of atheism is that people can and will go in any direction which turns them on...literally and I came across this reminder of that very fact.

(LONDON) - World motorsport chief Max Mosley hit back Wednesday at a top British editor who accused him of moral depravity over a sadomasochistic sex orgy, calling the tabloid newspaper chief a "prude."

But of course...one mans moral depravity is another's fun in that fantasy world of atheism :)

"The 67-year-old, who has been married for 48 years, was at one point whipped so hard that the orgy had to be halted while a bandage was applied to stop his bleeding."

One wonders..when turmoil and anger is going on in his head that he needs to draw blood like that?

Now...that.... IS 'the problem'...no restraint (other than the current version of the law).. no moral right and wrong... just legal/illegal.

ANSWER... in regard to the Question raised about whether we need more Christians or Atheists? I don't think we can ask such a question.

It is not "Christians" we need... it is "Mankind needs Christ"

The following website may be of interest:

http://dmiessler.com/blog/atheistic-societies-are-happy-societies

Daniel Miessler tell us that,

"According to a major study there's a very
strong correlation between atheism and
societal health. Here are the most non-religious
countries in the world, according to findings:

1. Sweden
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia

High levels of atheism are strongly correlated with
high levels of societal health, such as low
homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality
rates, low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of
educational attainment, per capita income, and gender
equality.

According to surveys done, educated and independent
people are 1) Less likely to be religious, and
2) Less likely to be taken advantage of by their
governments.
Religion encourages high birth rates,
intellectual weakness and dependence of its
followers.

Folks..here are some interesting thoughts :)

These ones are only about 30-40 seconds long.

http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/film_clips/The_missing_body.mov

http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/film_clips/Fish-eating_ghost.mov

http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/film_clips/Pascal%27s_sobering_word.mov

Specially for Bugsy and Pericles

http://www.jwm.christendom.co.uk/film_clips/Bananas_in_Tanganyika.mov

and for those who have some time on their hands..

Longer lectures/interviews here.

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/video/RELIGION/MONTGOMERY/montgomery.html

I Highly recommend the content.. as Montgomery is head and shoulders above most evangelicals in knowledge, education and insight.

I am sorry Polycarp but comments like this cannot be easily ignored.

"I think the natural outcome of atheism is that people can and will go in any direction which turns them on...literally and I came across this reminder of that very fact.

(LONDON) - World motorsport chief Max Mosley hit back Wednesday at a top British editor who accused him of moral depravity over a sadomasochistic sex orgy, calling the tabloid newspaper chief a "prude."

Atheism or religion have nothing to do with this story Polycarp. Given that many priests have abused children without any remorse or guilt - some even believing it is a God given right.

And clearly there will always be people who will go "in any direction that turns them on" despite the law - whether laid down by religion or by a governments. Committing sin and then being able to confess it to absolve one of the sin means that God's law still requires humans to make a choice - to adhere or not.

This story rather than being used disingenuously to target atheists yet again - would have been better used as a foundation to discuss issues like privacy, celebrity, psychology, counselling or power of the press.

The discussion is irrelevant to the large part of the world which is neither atheist nor Christian. One may believe in a supernatural and be an atheist as some Buddhists are. One may be a believer in God and not a Christian as Jews and Muslims are.

Unless there is a belief in God atheism is as meaningless as a-Apolloism. I believe that a society without either Christians or atheists would be healthier and better. It is as much a waste of time to deny the existence of God as to deny the existence of the tooth fairy. It only becomes necessary because people cling to the superstition that there is a God.

Society needs neither Christians nor atheists.

Of course dyslexic, insomniac agnostics may lie awake wondering if there is a dog.

Polycarp wrote:

"I think the natural outcome of atheism is that people can and will go in any direction which turns them on...literally and I came across this reminder of that very fact.

(LONDON) - World motorsport chief Max Mosley hit back Wednesday at a top British editor who accused him of moral depravity over a sadomasochistic sex orgy, calling the tabloid newspaper chief a "prude.""

Dear Polycarp,

How do you know Max Mosley is an atheist? We do know that Napoleon, Hitler, Martin Luther, the Kaisers, the Czars and other miscreants were Christians.

One could say that the natural outcome of Christianity is moral depravity considering the number of Christians who are also monsters. I won't since I don't blame Christianity for all the evils of the world only for many of them such as the Holocaust.

There is really no evidence that atheists behave better or worse than Christians. There are monsters who are Christians, and monsters who are atheists.

Most nations characterized by high degrees of
individual and societal security have the
highest rates of atheism, and conversely, nations
characterized by low degrees of individual and
societal security have the lowest rates of
atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe,
atheism is growing. However, throughout much
of the world particularly nations with high
birth rates - atheism is barely discernible.

As Daniel Miessler says, 'No surprise here.'

However, Ian Robertson in his book, "Sociology,"
points out that:

"For many years it was widely felt that as science
progressively provided rational explanations for the
mysteries of the universe, religion would have less
and less of a role to play and would eventually
disappear, unmasked as nothing more than superstition.

But there are still gaps in our understanding that
science can never fill. On the ultimately important
questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and the
nature of morality - science is utterly silent and,
by its nature, always will be.

Few citizens of modern societies would utterly deny
the possibility of some higher power in the universe,
some supernatural, transcendental realm that lies
beyond the boundaries of ordinary experience, and in
this fundamental sense religion is probably here to stay."

To believe or not - is our choice. When most people
mention religion, they have their own in mind.

Hi Pelican.
I guess the issue is more about when men turn their backs on God...eh?

a priest who molests a child.. is turning his back on known revelation of God's will and is thus without excuse.

A man who attends a sex orgy and gets himself whipped into a blood dripping ghoul.. might do so in ignorance.. or.. if he had knowledge of God.. by turning his back.

The bottom line is.. the human heart in all cases is the problem.

The difficulty for Atheists, is that perennial problem of not having a reference point outside their moral system which gives it any validity.
So..you get 2 atheists and you have 2 potentially competing ideologies about life.

This problem is particularly evident in the quest for a basis of human rights.

I'm probably going to open a thread on that matter..

"Human Rights are impossible without Religion"

For an advance peek... I recommend this.
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/video/RELIGION/MONTGOMERY/RIGHTS/rights.html

Montgomery is the man who takes on cases of human rights in Strassbourg...he beats "countries" on such issues not individuals.

One example he gave is of some Pentecostal Greeks who were dismissed from the armed forces and arrested under 'anti proselyting' laws.

Greece was taken to the EU human rights commission (being a signatory) and got it's butt kicked by Montgomery :) now..people can evangelize in Greece!

what is the measure of a sociaty?
art dance architecture ,literature ,the sciences ?

how many fine buildings [and architecture]
were built in the name of believers in god

how many texts ,how many poems, songs dedicated to god?

how many human rights documents begin with mention to god?
how many parlement meetings begin with prayer to god?
what is belief is the justice system built on ?
what text do most SWEAR upon?

so the list for xtian gets extensive
add in the other belief 's inspired by god

#[or to works of the supa-natural agencies ,nature]

how much art science math ,etc dit athism or athiests inspire? [construct ,compose or build [in honour ; or in memoram of]

the question is mute
its no contest if we are talking about things of the flesh
#[or of the spirit]

recorded athiest achievments
are virtually zero
[in our past his-story]

BUT THE QUESTION SHOULD have READ

has society 'devil-eloped' more by believers
in the higher power[or non god believers ,?

labeled in their dis 'belief' as a-thiest ,
yet only united in their non recognition of the god giving them their reality

given each of us to know better our god
[according as we earned]

yet gifted to all
of the love ,light ,logic and logus
of the highest [living] one][god]

Society needs Atheists, secularists and religious.
Secularists don’t believe in god(s) but acknowledge the rights of those who do.
We need mutual respect not the excesses of evangelists from either extreme.

Particularly religious people who impugning others’ beliefs through implication by their ill-considered dogma and lack of respect.
Like ‘you can't have human rights without Christianity'. :-O
It wasn't true before and it still isn’t now. No matter how many times that nonsense is repeated. History dictates that we have human rights DESPITE the APPLICATION of Christianity.
Archaeology shows that the golden rule "Do unto other as you would have done to you etc" (the basis of Christianity) predates it (the Bible) by at least two thousand years.

One could note that according to the Bible God loves ALL people. "Love thy enemy" and certainly not the toxic version of the golden rule 'do unto the Muslims before they do unto you'. Apart from God saying “judge not lest you be judged” and "Vengeance is mine”.
I challenge them to explain the inconsistency in their views about non believers i.e. native in PNG etc having grace (according to the bible). Yet zealots for their own selfish arrogance feel the need to take away that with their confused version of Christianity. I’d like them to explain how these heathens are better off with the destruction of belief systems that have sustained them at least 20 times longer than as Christianity an 12 time as long as Judaism. Where’re the human rights/respect in that?
What if their version of Christianity is wrong? Where in the Bible does it say that their interpretation is the right or only one?
Neither do they stick to the letter or spirit or the Bible picking and choosing and taking verses out of context.
I support their right to believe in God but not at the cost of tolerating ad nauseum their continual casting insulting aspersions on mine or others rights to our beliefs/values. I am not a Christian but I'll be damned if I'll accept implications denying my belief in human rights. Enough is enough >:-|

"There is really no evidence that atheists behave better or worse than Christians. There are monsters who are Christians, and monsters who are atheists."
Too true, David. The atheists, however, have an easier time avoiding being ridiculous.
Has there ever been a war fought for the 'glory of being secular'?
Can there be anything more ridiculous than 2 combatants -nations or individuals- both praying to the same God for victory; particularly when the God they are praying to commands them to 'love their enemies'?

Grim wrote:

"Can there be anything more ridiculous than 2 combatants -nations or individuals- both praying to the same God for victory; particularly when the God they are praying to commands them to 'love their enemies'?"

Dear Grim,

To the best of my knowledge it is only the humanoid god of Christianity that commands his followers to 'love their enemies'. The other gods that humans have created are more realistic.

Neither Muslims nor Jews have a humanoid god. Christians invented god in man. This made the religion acceptable to the classical world. The pagan pantheon of humanoid gods was reduced to one humanoid god. Christians, Jews and Muslims do not believe in the classical pantheon of gods. Not believing in Jupiter or Zeus makes them atheists. However, their atheism does not in general make them tolerant of the atheists who do not accept their invention.

"Not believing in Jupiter or Zeus makes them atheists." (?)
Jews, Christians and Muslims are atheists?
With the greatest respect, a 'theist' is someone who believes in a God or Gods. Not believing in a pantheon of Gods makes them monotheistic, certainly not atheistic.
I was of course alluding to the number of wars that have been fought between 'Christian' countries; England versus Germany, France v. England, Spain v France and England, Italy v England France...
Getting back to the original question, Perhaps the world could use more christians -if we could only find some. As George B Shaw put it (roughly): "Yes I think Christianity is a great idea. I just hope someone tries it one day".

Exammy.....

my statement was not that you cannot have human rights without 'Christianity'....but without 'religion'.. it could be Islam, Hinduism.. or Bahai.. any 'religion' which believes in a revelation from a higher outside power.. is valid.

The only question then is.. 'what kind of rights' does this higher power then allow?

You might want to have a peek at the 'Spirit of Australia' thread to see some of my thoughts on THAT issue.

You need to listen/view the whole lecture to understand the philosophical truth of the statement "Human rights do not exist apart from Religion".

I smiled also when I read your comment:

<<secularists don’t believe in god(s) but acknowledge the rights of those who do.
We need mutual respect not the excesses of evangelists from either extreme.>>

FOLLOWED BY :)

<<Particularly religious people who impugning others’ beliefs through implication by their ill-considered dogma and lack of respect.>>

Notttt bad going there :) 180 degree turn in 2 small paragraphs.

"Mutual Respect"

"Ill considered dogma" :)

Not bad.. try stand up some time ^_-

"Love your enemies" is not as crazy as it sounds. It depends a bit on why the other person is your enemy.
If he is so based on misinformation about you.. like he believed that you, because of your religion 'drank babies blood'.. well.. truth delivered by a cool head might save the day.

Also.. if there is like in Orissa hatred based on misinformation.. love might well save you from a firey death... or..it might not.(Graham Staines and children)

But in Principle.. loving your enemies can be effective in removing the source of the reason for the person being an enemy.

When the Arameans attacked the Israelites in the Old Testament.. and Israel had them in its' power.. Elisha said 'treat them well..feed them' and the Arameans went back to their own land as friends of the Israelites. (until the next generation and a new king that is)

Grim,
Of course you’re right of PEOPLE abuse concepts.
And those people’s misuse of the concept tends to be symptomatic of the individual’s personal proclivities.

Religion however can and does exist in both extremes tolerant of others and bigotry at the other.

Atheism doesn’t accept any other belief structures dismissing others as superstition etc. There are degrees of tolerance to intolerance of non-atheists.

Secularists while they don’t personally believe in religion they accept the right of individuals to personal beliefs…by definition they can’t be evangelists in the terms of imposing their religious perspective on others. They can ad do advocate separation between government and Churches.

There is a clear difference between religion and the imposition of “intelligent (sic) design” as science therefore both atheists and secularists oppose this.

I agree with you about secularists.

Polycarp wrote:

"But in Principle.. loving your enemies can be effective in removing the source of the reason for the person being an enemy.

When the Arameans attacked the Israelites in the Old Testament.. and Israel had them in its' power.. Elisha said 'treat them well..feed them' and the Arameans went back to their own land as friends of the Israelites. (until the next generation and a new king that is)"

Dear Polycarp,

I agree with you. It works. It is only unrealistic in that most will not do it. The Marshall Plan after WW2 ended the enmity with Germany and Japan. Rather than making a punitive peace the US under Truman had enough sense to help the enemies recover from the ravages of war. That good sense was lacking when the Soviet Union broke up, and Putin is rattling sabres.

The wise thing to do with the world's resources is to work out how best we can share them with other nations rather than have a series of wars over them.

Maybe we can try to love Muslims, Catholics, homosexuals and others who see things different from the way we do. Maybe instead of trying to get them to see things the same way we do we can accept and love them as they are.

It is hard sometimes even to love those near to us, but we can try to love all including our enemies.

From Coleridge;

He prayeth best, who loveth best
All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.

Foxy; “High levels of atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality.”

Yes. But this strong correlation doesn’t necessarily indicate causality. That is, it doesn’t indicate that a less religious society has a greater chance of achieving high levels of social health.

But what it clearly does indicate is that those who achieve this higher level of health, education and general wellbeing can see past the illusion of religion and see that it is unnecessary in order to live a fulfilling life.

As people become better educated and more able to think independently, the less they are into religion. This is very telling.

You would think that if religions were truly valuable, in terms of giving us a moral compass and in improving our lives, then the healthier and better-educated populations would be much more into them than the poor and uneducated masses.

“Religion encourages high birth rates, intellectual weakness and dependence of its followers.”

Yep. And aren’t these factors of the utmost importance. So to this end, societies need atheists considerably more than religious people….yes?

Dear Ludwig,

I think it was examinator
who said in his post we need Atheists, Christians,
et cetera... we need them all, not just one or the
other. But, we also need to respect and tolerate
each other. And therein lies the problem.

It seems that some religious groups aren't capable
of respect and tolerating others who are different
from themselves.

As a poster on another website stated:

"In most cases I would agree that correlation does not
imply causation. However, in this case, I would have
to say that it does imply causation. I live in
Alabama in the US. The bible belt. Religion dominates
everything here. I would say it could be cultural
differences, but that points to religion as well.
That IS the cultural difference. It is following the
religion overe here that makes things so bad.
All the countries that don't let Christianity run their
lives live better lives..."

Polycarp wrote:

"But in Principle.. loving your enemies can be effective in removing the source of the reason for the person being an enemy.

When the Arameans attacked the Israelites in the Old Testament.. and Israel had them in its' power.. Elisha said 'treat them well..feed them' and the Arameans went back to their own land as friends of the Israelites. (until the next generation and a new king that is)"

Dear Polycarp,

The above clearly contradicts any need for Christ. Jesus stated the wisdom in the above. However, it comes from his Jewish background. It does not depend on being a Jew either. Any people with common sense can see the wisdom of the above without subscribing to any belief in the supernatural.

The command to love your enemies demands nothing from them. If you demand their repentance you demand that they recognize your version of the facts and demand their admission that your view is the correct one.

There is wisdom in scripture. However, the wisdom is surrounded with fairy tales of virgin birth, raising people from the dead, the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib and the like. One can realize that the miracles and much of the narrative is strictly fiction, but the wisdom is there. One does not have to believe in nonsense to accept the wisdom.

Abandon your prejudice against Islam, Catholics and homosexuals. Sura 9 is far outweighed by the Inquisition, Crusades, Holocaust and the other evils of Christianity which you choose not to acknowledge. The ugly reality outweighs the nasty words.

I think there is much more reason to fear one of the Christian followers of Franco and Hitler taking power than there is to fear Sura 9.

“The use of the Bible to justify our prejudices must be abandoned. We do not abandon that sacred story in which the sins of scripture are embedded in the “terrible texts,” however. We rather claim it for our own.”

From “The Sins of Scripture: Exposing the Bible’s Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love” by John Shelby Spong.

in reply ,society need's to learn what other beleafs mean, the preacher's of all beleafs need to come together ,for society to apreshiate them all.

The subject is Atheism in a Christian view of God or Christianity, so other beliefs or non beliefs are not relative. I note Foxy earlier listed nations as predominantly non Christian.
1. Sweden
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia

These must be old findings as South Korea is now predominantly Christian, housing the largest Christian Churches in the World. They have associated the techologically advanced development of the West with Christian faith and practise, and have adopted Christianity as they too advance in this technological age.

Polycarp
I understand what you think you are saying :).

However the reference point you speak of isn't working for some Christians so why would it work for atheists? This reference point can be obtained in law or via religion as I have previously stated - the point is that is still requires adherence.

In both cases there will always be those who stray from the law and these issues can probably be dealt with more by improvements in social justice than via religion or the legal system alone.

My point about your example with Mosley is that it would be like me saying that when a Christian priest stays that means that all Christians are bad which is obviously not so. That was the implication you gave in your earlier post.

One cannot turn their back on God when there is no God. An atheist is not a God-hater, if there is no God to hate.

Dear Pelican,

You apparently have accepted Polycarp's assumption that Mosley is an atheist. Polycarp seems to have disapproved of Mosley's conduct and therefore assumed that he was an atheist. He presented no evidence to support this assertion. I think Polycarp played fast and loose with the truth.

Dear Philo,

The South Korea major study given in my previous post
was taken from the Daniel Miessler article of
August 23rd 2007.

However, be that as it may...

The South Korean Constitution bans designating any
faith as a state religion. Nearly half the country's
47 million people disavow any religious affiliation.
And with good reason.

In a recent article taken from the International
Herald Tribune (The Global Edition of The New York
Times) by Choe San-Hun, published October 14, 2008,
the headline read, "Religious peace threatened in
South Korea."

In August, tens of thousands of Buddhist monks and
lay people marched in central Seoul, accusing
President Lee Myung Bak and his government of
discriminating against Buddhists ...

This was a very unusual rebuke according to the article from
the country's once-docile and normally apolitical
Buddhists.

As the article states,
"This protest, the first of its kind here, signaled
an awakening of political activism among South Korea's
Buddhist clerics. It also raised the prospect of
sectarian strife, something the country has not seen in
its modern history."

"What we see is unusual, because this country - although
frequently torn by wars, idealogy-driven violence
and factional politics - has always maintained
religious harmony," said Song Jae Ryong, a professor
of the sociology of religion at Kyung Hee University.

Christianity, and its churches, may represent modernisation
in South Korea, and the beautiful Buddhist temples may
stand for the 1,600 year old culture of the past.

However, as the International Herald Tribune article
points out,

"...its the Christian churches that have irritated many
Koreans - not just Buddhists - with their assertive
proselytizing and alleged disregard for other faiths."

Dear David F....

it's a fine point but you are correct... I did not say Mosley was an atheistm but I certainly suggested it..Nevertheless his conduct illustrated where it (or a rejection of Gods authority in personal affairs to the Priest or believer) can lead.

In a later post I also said that such behavior can be from either a denial of the the God who IS there..or a denial of the existence of God.

Mosley's conduct is a clear indication of one of those categories.

If he believes in God, it must be a very strange God which allows such goings on.... if he does not...then he will simply see nothing morally wrong with such things.

It should be emphasized that to put things this way, does not imply that all atheists will do such things, simply that there is no moral barrier to them feeling quite ok about them.

Dear Polycarp,

I appreciate your admission that you didn't know whether Mosley was an atheist. There is no evidence that atheists behave better or worse than people who believe in a god. it was not justified to assume one behaving badly is an atheist.

You wrote:

"It should be emphasized that to put things this way, does not imply that all atheists will do such things, simply that there is no moral barrier to them feeling quite ok about them."

The above statement assumes that moral barriers are generated by a belief in God. That is nonsense. A feeling of right and wrong is one thing. Belief in God is another. They are not in the least connected. Atheists can feel more connected to their fellow human beings since they do not have a God figure that gives them assurance that they are allowed to slaughter people in the name of god as in the Crusades. Not that atheists are free from bad behaviour. They can find other reasons.

Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. For good people to do bad things requires religion.

Morality is a product of connecting to one's fellow human beings and developing a sense of right and wrong through that connection, parental and other conditioning and one's feelings.

Hitler and Stalin both had Christian religious training as children. Both thought of entering the priesthood. Hitler never renounced his Christianity. Stalin became an atheist. Both were monsters.

Australia has had an atheist prime minister in Bob Hawke, a Catholic in Paul Keating and a Protestant in John Howard. I didn't notice any difference in their morality.

Agreed David.. I was not intending to say "all" Atheists will behave thus and so..but that there is no moral 'anchor' other than the one they themselves decide on. Therefore..they could decide on any of a whole range of choices for that.

For a Christian..there can be only 2 conditions. 'Obedience' to the known standard..or.. disobedience to it.
There is no question of 'what' is the standard.. (apart from a bit of subjectivism it must be conceded on some things.. like 'gouge out' the sinful eye) but such things require a knowledge of the way of speaking of the day.

The point I was seeking to make re Mosley.. was that his behavior is neither moral nor immoral from the atheist world view, aside from the standard the individual atheist chooses to recognize.

From a Christian viewpoint..Mosley's behavior is very much against what God has laid down.. and is mentioned many times in the Old and New Testament as being totally unnacceptable to the Almighty.

I find this a refreshingly encouraging state of affairs.

I wonder if many people have contemplated how society would be if we had a 'god' who allowed and condoned all manner of dedonistic debauchery and human degradation.. and just called it 'fun'.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77279

<<In "Nephilim Stargates: The Year 2012 and the Return of the Watchers," Thomas Horn ties moral abandonment to an ancient spirit, known in antiquity as the Greek god Dionysus (Roman Bacchus) who represented the personification of unrestrained sexuality.>>

“Does a society need atheists or Christians more?”

Society does not exist.

Only individuals and their families exist

And those individuals should be free to decide to follow any religion or creed they choose,

so long as that religion or creed respects the rights of other individuals to follow a different faith.

And it is on that final point which often exposes the fraud of many of those of the extreme religiously and atheistic minded.

An excellent post Col Rouge.Nothing more needs to be said.

WAIT ARJAY ..... I just found some very very cool quotes from a great preacher that are awesome :)

Let me say.. we need more Christians like this bloke! (when I say 'we' here..I mean the Church)

"You can't tell it like it is, if you don't believe it like it was."

"Most church members live so far below the standard, you would have to backslide to be in fellowship with them."

"Sometimes you hear congregations say concerning a preacher's message, ' I didn't get it.' It's not our place that they get it, it's our place to see that they hear it."

"Some preachers ought to put more fire into their sermons or more sermons into the fire."

"If you want to be popular, preach happiness. If you want to be unpopular, preach holiness."

Nowwwww ENUF is said :)

Welcome back from the GULAG Col :)

Dear David f,
What is your definition of a christian for my bible tells me that if the same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead doesn't live in you you are not a christian at all. I would have to say from what I have read Adolf Hitler doesn't fit that requirement for the fruit of his life was death not life.

Now we DEFINITELY need more Christians like this bloke. From Compass on ABC1 last night:

http://abc.com.au/tv/guide/netw/200811/programs/RN0711H040D16112008T220500.htm

Chris Toohey, the Bishop of Wilcannia-Forbes, a western New South Wales Catholic diocese the size of France, is responding to a Papal call for an "ecological conversion" of the world's Catholics, he founded Catholic Earthcare which promotes the understanding that Creation is sacred and endangered, and must be protected.

He counters the view that some Christians hold; that climate change and other looming environmental issues are signs of the second coming and that humanity shouldn’t be doing anything about it, but should welcome it and just bring it on!

Here’s another Christian of the right sort; Reverend Richard Cizik.

http://abc.com.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2008/2419447.htm

Polycarp; http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8121#127612

The unfortunate thing is, Ludwig, that you can't just get them delivered to order from Amazon.

>>Now we DEFINITELY need more Christians like this bloke<<

If we were able to select the kind of Christian that we need, it would be the caring, honest, tolerant sort - ok, maybe with a touch of eco-awareness thrown in if you insist.

I know quite a few of these. One such is a chap - probably well into his eighties - who until recently collected for the Salvos every Friday at the railway station I use. We always had a chat, and he impressed me mightily with his ability to see the absolute best in anyone, and to be almost superhumanly non-judgemental.

Not entirely sure about his eco-cred, though, we never actually touched upon the topic.

The ones we could do without of course are the bible-bashing, vengeful, hate-ridden one-eyed sort, who believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that they are leading Christian lives.

I know quite a few of these too.

I am not entirely sure how to categorize those who spout bland platitudes, though. Thanks Boaz for reminding us of that particular breed.

>>WAIT ARJAY ..... I just found some very very cool quotes from a great preacher that are awesome<<

I suspect these guys might have a slot all on their own, marked "do not approach at social functions".

I've met a few of them too. They always remind me of Douglas Adams' description of the audience reaction to the second-worst poetry in the universe...

"During a recitation by their poetmaster Grunthos the Flatulent of his poem "Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning", four of his audience died of internal haemorrhaging and the President of the Mid-Galactic Arts Nobbling Council only survived by gnawing one of his own legs off"

Polycarp,

I'm probably going to open a thread on that matter..

"Human Rights are impossible without Religion"

Don't bother, old son. We're all getting enough as it is.

Now if the topic were: "Without religion there would be no right wing in politics" you might be on to something interesting.

Pericles; “If we were able to select the kind of Christian that we need, it would be the caring, honest, tolerant sort - ok, maybe with a touch of eco-awareness thrown in if you insist.”

Wow. Do you really think that a bit of ‘eco-awareness’ is entirely optional?

It is essential! All the caring, honesty and tolerance in the world are not going to count for much if those sorts of people just sit back and let our massive rate of ecological destruction…and destruction of our own future….continue unchallenged.

Chris Toohey, Richard Cizik and a very small number of others are not just talking about environmental protection for the sake of a few threatened species, they’re talking about the sustainability of humanity, in balance with a healthy environment.

Polycarp supports the whole sustainability ethic. But apart from him, there has been just about no religious person on this forum that has come for or against it. No one, not even Polycarp, seems interested in it.

For goodness sake the most important thing of all; getting the human race to live within its means instead of being so blatantly out of whack with the rest of the biosphere…and doing it with the utmost urgency…is just a big snore for the Christians on OLO and 99.999% of them across the world!!

Foxy,

The study that Meisler refers to, draws a correlation despite:

Vietnam being in the No. 2 position
South Korea at No. 9
And Estonia at No. 10.

A positive correlation between atheism and global measures of health etc, can only be made, if Vietnam (no statistical collaboration with the assertion) and South Korea (as per Philo’s post, the dwindling number of atheists, a corresponding growth in evangelical christianity), and Estonia, with a population of 2 million, (statistically irrelevant), were excluded from the study.

Further, the “study” ignores the top 10 countries with the highest proportion of atheists. This would be a different list:

East Germany 88.20%
Slovenia 29.80
Russia 27.30
Israel 25.60
Netherlands 24.10
Hungary 23.30
Norway 14.90
Britain 14.00
West Germany 12.10
New Zealand 11.50

How would this study define countries square countries such as Ireland and Iceland (80.7% being members of the National Church of Iceland) with it's "correlation"?

A random sampling of global Indices of measurement:

In Order: A__B__C__D__E__F__G
Sweden__5__11__1__13__6__27__18
Vietnam__61__168__121__105__105__135__60
Denmark __9__15__1__145__14__11__28
Norway __3__3__14__2__2__34__23
Japan__17__29__18__8__8__17__2
Czech Republic__34__16__45__32__32__37__40
Finland__12__5__5__11__11__16__33
France__25__35__23__10__1__48__16
South Korea__30__50__40__26__26__41__14
Estonia__68__4__27__44__44__12__88

Australia__6__28__9__3__3__4__15
Iceland:__7__1__7__1__1__14__92__20
Ireland:__31__6__16__6__5__3__31__22

Where:

A. Worldwide quality of life index (Ranking out of 111 countries)

B. Worldwide Press Freedom Index (168 countries)

C. Corruption Perceptions Index (177 countries)

D. Global Peace Index

E. Human Development Index (177 countries)

F. Index of Economic Freedom (157 countries)

G. GDP (IMF, 2007)

H. Global Competiveness Report (125 countries)

Where are the other indices which measure health in a population, particularly mental health?

For example, Teen suicide Rates per 100,000

Estonia 13.2
Norway 10.9
Finland 9.5
Av: 7.0
Japan: 6.4
France 5
Denmark 4.9
Sweden 4.3

(all above average, Estonia being the highest. Source: WHO)

The facts simply do not support the conclusions.

Polycarp wrote:

"The point I was seeking to make re Mosley.. was that his behavior is neither moral nor immoral from the atheist world view, aside from the standard the individual atheist chooses to recognize.

From a Christian viewpoint..Mosley's behavior is very much against what God has laid down.. and is mentioned many times in the Old and New Testament as being totally unnacceptable to the Almighty.

Dear Polycarp,

The above is more of your nonsense. You don’t know what God wants anymore than I know what God wants.

There are many atheist worldviews as there are many religious worldviews. Different Christians have different views of right and wrong. Different atheists have different views of right and wrong.

Your equation of Christianity and God is obnoxious, as people besides Christians believe in God. Muslims believe in God and not the God of the Bible. They have as much right to claim knowledge of what God wants as you do. Actually I don’t have the arrogance to claim what God wants.

Bishop Spong is a member of the Christian Anglican Church. He has a very different view from you about what is right and wrong.

There are atheists who worry about sexual behaviour and would condemn Mosley as much as you do. There is not one atheist worldview. There are Christians who are not particularly worried about sexual behaviour but think other matters are more important.

However, I am not one of the atheists who condemn Max Mosley. As long as the participants in a sexual orgy are consenting adults I really don’t care what they do. That is not my business. I condemn Mosley’s father, as he was a racist. I think Mosley’s orgies are nothing to get excited about.

Air crews bombing a civilian section of a city, greedy guts making money from other people’s suffering, using land mines, depleted uranium or cluster bombs in warfare, logging destroying the habitat of an endangered species and unkind acts are some of the many things I consider immoral.

It is arrogant nonsense for you to claim you know what God wants.

Richie 10 wrote: What is your definition of a christian for my bible tells me that if the same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead doesn't live in you you are not a christian at all. I would have to say from what I have read Adolf Hitler doesn't fit that requirement for the fruit of his life was death not life.

Dear Richie 10,

You don’t like Hitler’s behaviour so you try to say he isn’t a member of your group. That is the same kind of nonsense other people exhibit. A Marxist I know claimed Stalin wasn’t really a Marxist because he didn’t consider Stalin’s behaviour in accordance with Marxist principles.

My definition of a Christian is the same as the way I define the member of any other group. The person is a member of the group by his own definition and the group’s acceptance of that definition.

Hitler was raised as a Catholic Christian and at one time wanted to become a priest. When he came to power as head of the German state he agreed to a Concordat with the Vatican in which the two states defined their relationship. He was never excommunicated and therefore died a Catholic Christian.

He carried out a Christian agenda. For years Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Christianity had been promoting hatred of Jews. Catholic Crusaders had massacred Jews in Germany and other places. Martin Luther wrote hate diatribes against Jews that were printed in the Nazi newspapers to promote the Nazi agenda. Orthodox Christians carried out pogroms against Jews.

Hitler was not only formally a Christian. He was profoundly Christian in advancing an agenda of hate that had been promoted by various Christian churches.

I don’t like his behaviour either, but he was a real Christian.