God is a requirement for a free world - You need Jesus.

[YourFriendlyLurker]

Deep Thots urgently needs a religion containment thread.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

You should really stop substituting "America" for "the world", because America by no means represents the rest of the world, and from an outside perspective, none of the so-called truths you've alluded to appear to be true for America either.

The only instances I can think of where religion can arguably make people more free is when it's positioned against something else which is denying people their freedom: like a totalitarian government, foreign invasion, colonialism, mercantile exploitation, etc. In and of itself, believing in god doesn't make people more free, and in many instances, it has actually motivated people to work to stifle freedoms (we can look at the egregious examples in places like Afghanistan or Uganda, but it nevertheless still holds true in places like Tennessee and Alabama).

I think we should ultimately define what "freedom" really means though, because I find that many people seem to lack a defensible or useful definition of the term.

To me, the best way to understand freedom is through empowerment: the more power you have as an individual to define the course of your destiny; the more free you ultimately are, and if this is the definition we're working with, then I'd say that religion almost certainly doesn't make people more free; if anything, it just placates them enough to make them think that they are.

I'd say this fits with the American idea of freedom, though, because like religion, the concept of "freedom" is little more than a national myth which exists to placate the American people. Americans like to tell themselves that they live in the "land of the free", while they are constantly watched by alphabet agencies, sentenced to long prison terms for trivial infractions, berated with accusations of insufficient patriotism if they don't cheer on the latest colonial blunder in the Middle East, and lack even basic freedoms such as access to healthcare, employment opportunities, shelter, nutritious food, safe streets, workers rights, and a good education.

Instead of "God", a better guarantee of freedom might be a belief in basic human dignity.

 

[MadStan]

Without a god the entire moral system we have collapses. That's the biggest problem with atheism, if we are all soulless meat puppets then why should immorality matter? We should be greedy fuckers who fuck everything and everyone as long as we don't get caught.
And guess what, this exactly what happens right now with Dems and Trannies. Killing a 8 month old clump of cells is okay since it's soulless (as the writer of The Handmaid's Tale says in an interview). And grooming children for sexual pleasure is totally moral.

So yes, God is a requirement for a functioning free world. And that's without the obvious argument that the entire leftist policy is build around notion of religion dogma they don't believe in (such that we should respect and accept trannies).

This is exactly why Religion is evil.

You are here saying that religion is required for a moral code. Why? Why are you so inherently evil that you will commit murder, theft, arson and rape - because a book told you it was not right? Why are you so fucked up that unless a book tells you not to do these things, you will? Was it the same God that smiled down and asked the Pope to use his legal team to shut down rape and child abuse allegations? Prisons are full of God Fearing people.

Atheists I know are rather concerned with matters because we understand we are not pawning off our responsibilities of Earth and our children to some book or fictional character in the sky "where it will all be Ok...somehow". Atheism doesn't mean you have no moral code - it doesn't make atheists angels either.

Being an atheist doesn't make you immoral - immorality is your choice. If you require a code to tell you what is right or wrong then that means you are by nature immoral and are fighting what you are in your core. This goes in line with the bullshit of religion where everyone is deemed born in sin, utter garbage.

God is required for a dysfunctional world, justification for war and a host of other things. You do not need a book to tell you that you should not steal and commit evil. If you need a book to guide your choices then you are already lost.

The idea that a fellow human needs to be told it is not OK to steal my car is baffling, or that cheating on your spouse is going to result in pain and suffering is a poor choice is madness. Or stealing money from a business is disgusting.

Religion is a requirement for irresponsible people because they are incapable of making good choices and need the fear of infinite repercussions to keep them in check - they are by nature immoral and need that book hovering over their head as much as prisoner needs that camera watching their every move. Perhaps someone can explain why God keeps deciding to be the Creator of sinners rather than nice people...

I do not need that - I doubt you do too. Fear of consequences doesn't make you a moral person - it means you are living in fear. In the end whether you are religious or not, it is ultimately YOU who decides what you are going to do in this world and what you are comfortable with.

I spent the first half of my life as deeply religious as anyone else you've ever met - probably more so. Went around converting people, handed out books, attended seminars and events, donated everything. So I know what I am talking about. I despise organized religion, I do not despise the people in them as they are usually there for the right reasons to be a better person, and I despise the label organized religions give to those who refuse to follow their dogma as immoral. It is simply untrue.

Good people are good people. they can belong to a vast variety of religions often in conflict with one another, they can be members of multiple political wings, or they can be atheists. A good person is a good person.

 

[Zarael]

This is exactly why Religion is evil.

You are here saying that religion is required for a moral code. Why?

Acknowledgement of God is required to rationally justify binding ethical views. Without purpose there is no ought and without an ought there is no reason anything should be any way at all. Without purpose ethical views are mere preference and preferences are just that, arbitrary.

Why are you so inherently evil that you will commit murder, theft, arson and rape - because a book told you it was not right? Why are you so fucked up that unless a book tells you not to do these things, you will? Was it the same God that smiled down and asked the Pope to use his legal team to shut down rape and child abuse allegations? Prisons are full of God Fearing people.

You don't have to do those things if you don't acknowledge purpose within creation, you just have no rational basis for doing so. This creates some friction between the way the atheist believes things are (purposeless, arbitrary universe fundamentally material) and how they actually live their lives. There's no reason you can't be a good person as an atheist but if you want to be a good person for rational reasons and not sentamentalism then you need to be a theist.

Atheists I know are rather concerned with matters because we understand we are not pawning off our responsibilities of Earth and our children to some book or fictional character in the sky "where it will all be Ok...somehow". Atheism doesn't mean you have no moral code - it doesn't make atheists angels either.

What does it matter? What are your responsibilities under atheism? Our existence here is a cosmic coincidence. It doesn't mean anything that we're here and the universe would keep on spinning if we went extinct tomorrow so what does it even matter? We have responsibilities? To whom? Why? What do you think the end game is under atheism? There's no happy ending, you're perpetuating the human race for no real reason other than inertia. And certainly propagation of the species is biological imperative but pretending that you have any greater "responsibility" for Earth than an ant does, again causes a little bit of friction between your view of a purposeless creation and your sentimentalism of having responsibilities.

Being an atheist doesn't make you immoral - immorality is your choice.

True. There's no rational reason to be a moral person as an atheist though if you think you're just an advanced ape. You're an animal, like any other animal. What imbues you with moral responsibility and not an ape? And if morality is just a matter of social utility what's the harm in recognizing the prisoners dilemma and taking personal advantage of the system? Lions kill their competitors young, there are lazy ants that just pretend to work and contribute nothing, "immoral" behavior is rife in nature but it's actually profoundly rational from the individual perspective. Why not be a lazy ant? Why not kill the competing males offspring to ensure your own survival? It's law of the jungle by your own admission and no ethical system can ever get past that while you maintain a view that the cosmos is arbitrary with no goal or purpose.

God is required for a dysfunctional world, justification for war and a host of other things. You do not need a book to tell you that you should not steal and commit evil. If you need a book to guide your choices then you are already lost.

Oh please. This is just fedora tipping histrionics. More people got killed in the name of atheistic communism than ever died in the name of religion. This is another problem with atheism, for people with a worldview that cannot ground ethical duties in anything other than preference you sure are confident when moralizing to others. War is bad? Why? Other animals war all the time. We're just animals aren't we? Reason doesn't say war is bad. Reason says that if you can gain an advantage and perpetuate your own tribe you should do it, that's evolution. Feelings about the common humanity of all people, the inherent dignity of man? That's based in religion. You gotta toss all that out unless you can justify it in your own system, and you can't. Nietzsche was highly critical of people like yourself who dismissed religion but swaddled themselves in the remnants of the moral sensibilities of said religion imbued into you by the culture. The moral precepts you hold are not self evident, they're the result of a specific worldview and system that was passed down through society over history.

The idea that a fellow human needs to be told it is not OK to steal my car is baffling, or that cheating on your spouse is going to result in pain and suffering is a poor choice is madness. Or stealing money from a business is disgusting.

Again, these are not self evident positions. You might think they are but constructing your entire ethical system around the fact that you think it's a no brainer not to punch people isn't exactly robust. And, not to state the obvious, but people DO steal so clearly there are plenty of people who haven't got the memo. Regardless of that though the question is WHY said things are wrong, how do we extend that logic? What basis are you using? Kants categorical imperative? Virtue ethics? Your argument is "Stealing is wrong everyone knows that" and the only reason you know that is because you were raised in a culture that values property rights.

Religion is a requirement for irresponsible people because they are incapable of making good choices

To be honest neither are you. The depth of thought you've displayed with such arguments as "punching people is wrong because...it just is, ok!" does not fill me with confidence you have a fully fleshed out ethical system that you could apply to situations that aren't so straightforward. It's sentimentalism, and it's good that sentimentalism can get you through a lot but it can also do a lot of wrong. It's not rational and isn't what we're aiming for here more rationality and not just guiding ourselves on emotion? We need reasons for why things are right and wrong and those reasons are going to change based on what you think reality actually is. Atheists have had a hell of a time trying to justify ethics as anything more than utilitarian social mores for centuries now and they're not getting any closer to a real solution.

I spent the first half of my life as deeply religious as anyone else you've ever met - probably more so. Went around converting people, handed out books, attended seminars and events, donated everything. So I know what I am talking about.

Sounds like American Protestantism which is completely spiritually bereft.

Good people are good people. they can belong to a vast variety of religions often in conflict with one another, they can be members of multiple political wings, or they can be atheists. A good person is a good person.

Agreed. But whether or not a person can be good isn't really the question, it's why you should be a good person that is the key issue. We should always have good reasons to believe the things we do, correct? The atheist problem is that they'll apply that to epistemological questions but flub when it comes to ethics. Under the atheist view of reality society is a big prisoners dilemma and I'm being irrational by being altruistic. It's good that the majority of atheists are sentimentalists and can generally ignore the implications of what they say about reality and live in a contrary way but it's anything but rational.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

This is exactly why Religion is evil.

You are here saying that religion is required for a moral code. Why? Why are you so inherently evil that you will commit murder, theft, arson and rape - because a book told you it was not right? Why are you so fucked up that unless a book tells you not to do these things, you will? Was it the same God that smiled down and asked the Pope to use his legal team to shut down rape and child abuse allegations? Prisons are full of God Fearing people.

Atheists I know are rather concerned with matters because we understand we are not pawning off our responsibilities of Earth and our children to some book or fictional character in the sky "where it will all be Ok...somehow". Atheism doesn't mean you have no moral code - it doesn't make atheists angels either.

Being an atheist doesn't make you immoral - immorality is your choice. If you require a code to tell you what is right or wrong then that means you are by nature immoral and are fighting what you are in your core. This goes in line with the bullshit of religion where everyone is deemed born in sin, utter garbage.

God is required for a dysfunctional world, justification for war and a host of other things. You do not need a book to tell you that you should not steal and commit evil. If you need a book to guide your choices then you are already lost.

The idea that a fellow human needs to be told it is not OK to steal my car is baffling, or that cheating on your spouse is going to result in pain and suffering is a poor choice is madness. Or stealing money from a business is disgusting.

Religion is a requirement for irresponsible people because they are incapable of making good choices and need the fear of infinite repercussions to keep them in check - they are by nature immoral and need that book hovering over their head as much as prisoner needs that camera watching their every move. Perhaps someone can explain why God keeps deciding to be the Creator of sinners rather than nice people...

I do not need that - I doubt you do too. Fear of consequences doesn't make you a moral person - it means you are living in fear. In the end whether you are religious or not, it is ultimately YOU who decides what you are going to do in this world and what you are comfortable with.

I spent the first half of my life as deeply religious as anyone else you've ever met - probably more so. Went around converting people, handed out books, attended seminars and events, donated everything. So I know what I am talking about. I despise organized religion, I do not despise the people in them as they are usually there for the right reasons to be a better person, and I despise the label organized religions give to those who refuse to follow their dogma as immoral. It is simply untrue.

Good people are good people. they can belong to a vast variety of religions often in conflict with one another, they can be members of multiple political wings, or they can be atheists. A good person is a good person.

Zarael already annihilated your argument, but I'll add my own opinion.

Humans aren't evil but they are self serving. Human history is filled with conquest and rape by tribes that seek to perpetuate their lineage irregardless of religion. Our modern moral code hinges on humans having more importance over farm animals. In Abrahamic religion it is justified as Man in imbued with divinity, which is why a human is more important than a horse, which rationally has more ability to contribute to society at large.
You cannot bridge that gap in atheism, in it both a man and a horse are animals with some intelligence, and killing either due to them wasting resources (for example if they are old and lame) is completely justifiable both personally and for society and large.

Being a "moral atheist" is an oxymoron. As an atheist you have no claim over any objective morality. After all, who says one morality is better than the other? Depending on the place you travel to in the world rape, stealing and killing can be justified. What you are really saying that you are an atheist that abides to western moral principles based on Christian religion.

And yeah you need a book for sins. Since, for a poor person, stealing your car will let him live another day. But religion, whether it's true or fake, decided that the social cohesion from forbidding stealing is far more important than people selfishly doing what's good for them.

 

[Osmosis Jones]

You should really stop substituting "America" for "the world", because America by no means represents the rest of the world, and from an outside perspective, none of the so-called truths you've alluded to appear to be true for America either.

As addressed in the OP, I used America as the de facto free country. It's been the exemplified free nation around the world for quite some time, and regardless of the reality of America, the ideal American dream has been peddled constantly despite its death many years ago. America is also very easy to go off of for this argument because of the brevity of its history in comparison to say, the British monarchy. If I were to have used the UK as an example, history complicates my argument far more. Regardless, I do think religion and spirituality as a whole is necessary the world over to maintain any semblance of peace within a country and among its people.

The only instances I can think of where religion can arguably make people more free is when it's positioned against something else which is denying people their freedom: like a totalitarian government, foreign invasion, colonialism, mercantile exploitation, etc. In and of itself, believing in god doesn't make people more free, and in many instances, it has actually motivated people to work to stifle freedoms (we can look at the egregious examples in places like Afghanistan or Uganda, but it nevertheless still holds true in places like Tennessee and Alabama).

Don't care. I won't address arguments about religious control over society, thoughts, ideals, and people. You are living in a society with religious-like control based on materialism, hedonism, and Earthly pleasure. While I don't dismiss everyone who participates in these things, when we have a materialistic approach to life, things mean very little. When a government rules over you with no God, and therefore no one to answer to, what reason do they have to respect you as an individual? In fact, without God, it's actually more beneficial to add more control and further restrict you as a human being. It's profitable, it's easier, and it's logically and pragmatically the right thing to do. It doesn't need to go further than this because in a godless material world, this really is how simple it is. To repeat something I said earlier, if a population believes God is the final authority and one man thinks he is above it all, how do you think it will go? We know how the inverse situation goes because we live in it. Everyone is confused and can't agree on what anything means.

I think we should ultimately define what "freedom" really means though, because I find that many people seem to lack a defensible or useful definition of the term.

It's not hard. Freedom is to be free as you are in nature. People, that is to say, groups and societies obviously cannot live in pure chaotic freedom as wild animals. We're more intelligent than that and so we build a society with rules and policies to protect ourselves from wrongdoing and to deal with wrongdoers. This is why we have agreed-upon limitations on freedom, and not a list of things you're allowed to do.

To me, the best way to understand freedom is through empowerment: the more power you have as an individual to define the course of your destiny; the more free you ultimately are, and if this is the definition we're working with, then I'd say that religion almost certainly doesn't make people more free; if anything, it just placates them enough to make them think that they are.

No, that's empowerment. You're confusing the basic idea of being able to do what you want within your means and being held back by a societal power complex. I don't ask that any society or government empowers or grows me, I ask that they stop disempowering me and pushing me down for what I think.

I'd say this fits with the American idea of freedom, though, because like religion, the concept of "freedom" is little more than a national myth which exists to placate the American people. Americans like to tell themselves that they live in the "land of the free", while they are constantly watched by alphabet agencies, sentenced to long prison terms for trivial infractions, berated with accusations of insufficient patriotism if they don't cheer on the latest colonial blunder in the Middle East, and lack even basic freedoms such as access to healthcare, employment opportunities, shelter, nutritious food, safe streets, workers rights, and a good education.

Instead of "God", a better guarantee of freedom might be a belief in basic human dignity.

The "freedoms" you listed aren't freedoms at all. They're rights and privileges. I don't have the freedom to healthcare. I don't have the freedom to roads. You're describing rights that need to be agreed upon within a society, not something determined by human freedom. You believe that you have the right to healthcare, roads, and education. I believe that you should have the freedom to say so, and the freedom to use those things should they be available to you. When we start talking about things like American healthcare policy, we're getting tangential to the point. The way this is constructed has far less to do with freedom and a lot more to do with American policy and attitudes at large. Socialized medicine and healthcare isn't exactly fantastic either.

What is a clear and defensible definition of basic human dignity that we can adhere to and construct a moral and societal system off of? It's a great sentiment but ultimately meaningless to anyone but an individual.

 

[Osmosis Jones]

Why? Why are you so inherently evil?
<snip>
I spent the first half of my life as deeply religious as anyone else you've ever met - probably more so.

You spent the first half of your life deeply religious and you missed the entire concept of Original Sin?

 

[gang weeder]

So who's stopping you form having it and how?

"Too late, I've adapted so long to being behind enemy lines I wouldn't know what to do with myself in a liberal city at this point. Keeping my fucking religious beliefs to myself out in meat space is something I've gotten REAL good at."

What did you mean by this?

Yea. If America comes under the rule of people like you and Osmosis, that's exactly what. I've got no passport, no connections in other countries, this is all I know.

If you made me God-Emperor of America, I'd divvy it up into 4 or 5 smaller, regional republics. Libtards like you could have the west coast and the northeast or some such, that way christcucks like myself could hang out in the south or wherever without having to deal with your retardation. Mutually beneficial non-association. Is that really so terrifying to you?

Ah, NPC, another term that now just means "You disagree with me, so you can't think for yourself."

You should quit being such a stereotype.

Anyway, what do you think I'll do against it? The worst case scenario is that I'll put a bullet into myself. I will make sure you never take me alive to some reeducation camp or thrown into a country I have no roots or prospects in.

You refuse to accept mutually agreed non-association, instead constructing wild persecution fantasies in order to justify the status quo.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

(For some reason it's not letting me quote your post @Osmosis Jones, so I'm having to quote your reply manually)

As addressed in the OP, I used America as the de facto free country. It's been the exemplified free nation around the world for quite some time, and regardless of the reality of America, the ideal American dream has been peddled constantly despite its death many years ago. America is also very easy to go off of for this argument because of the brevity of its history in comparison to say, the British monarchy. If I were to have used the UK as an example, history complicates my argument far more. Regardless, I do think religion and spirituality as a whole is necessary the world over to maintain any semblance of peace within a country and among its people.

You used America as the de facto example of a free country because you've bought into America's national mythology; not because it bears any resemblance to the actual facts. The reality is that America is very far from a free country: it has more incarcerated citizens per capita than any other country on the planet, a highly controlled political and media establishment which prevents any real opposition to the status quo, and a level of state surveillance and police powers that would make the Stasi proud.

Even the facts surrounding America's founding have been largely embellished in the American psyche: America certainly wasn't founded as a free country; the founding fathers were wealthy, mercantile warlords who actively profiteered from slavery and human trafficking, and the citizens who comprised the 13 colonies, far from being driven by a desire to escape persecution—as is often claimed—were often much more keen on having the license to persecute others (see: Salem Witch trials).

This isn't to say that America doesn't have some good credentials when it comes to upholding freedom: the US Constitution is, in many respects, an enviable document, and the First Amendment in particular is something which I think all countries ideally ought to have, but generally speaking, the US is very far from what I would describe as a free society, certainly not relative to many other countries I could mention.

Don't care. I won't address arguments about religious control over society, thoughts, ideals, and people. You are living in a society with religious-like control based on materialism, hedonism, and Earthly pleasure. While I don't dismiss everyone who participates in these things, when we have a materialistic approach to life, things mean very little. When a government rules over you with no God, and therefore no one to answer to, what reason do they have to respect you as an individual? In fact, without God, it's actually more beneficial to add more control and further restrict you as a human being. It's profitable, it's easier, and it's logically and pragmatically the right thing to do. It doesn't need to go further than this because in a godless material world, this really is how simple it is. To repeat something I said earlier, if a population believes God is the final authority and one man thinks he is above it all, how do you think it will go? We know how the inverse situation goes because we live in it. Everyone is confused and can't agree on what anything means.

You don't care about all of the evidence which contradicts your assumption? Because that kind of implies that you're not interested in approaching the debate with any intellectual honesty. For my part, I'm certainly interested to hear some evidence from you that religion makes societies freer, because so far, the evidence has lead me to understand that the opposite seems to be true: Afghanistan is very clearly not a freer society than the Netherlands, for example; Uganda is very clearly not a freer society than Denmark.

As for the idea that a sincere belief in God could incentivize those in power not to become too hubristic, or could somehow disincentivize them from trampling upon the rights of others, I find that to be rather quaint. Unfortunately however, I think it's built upon an incorrect assumption about the kind of people who are drawn to power in the first place, and on a practical level, we simply have too many examples of people in power invoking personal piety as a means of placating the masses, only to then go on exploiting them.

To disarm the citizens against this by instilling within them the credulous assumption that religiosity equates to superior empathy and trustworthiness appears to me to be very unwise.

It's not hard. Freedom is to be free as you are in nature. People, that is to say, groups and societies obviously cannot live in pure chaotic freedom as wild animals. We're more intelligent than that and so we build a society with rules and policies to protect ourselves from wrongdoing and to deal with wrongdoers. This is why we have agreed-upon limitations on freedom, and not a list of things you're allowed to do.

Except "free as you are in nature" often means "not very free at all", which is precisely why I am inclined to disagree with the idea that freedom is best defined along these lines. A lone hunter-gatherer in the wilderness may be free from authority figures telling them what to do, but in practical terms, what freedoms do they ultimately have? Essentially: the freedom to hunt and gather or starve to death, and that's pretty much it.

My contention is that this is hardly a useful or defensible way to measure freedom; a much better way is through the presence of choice.

The "freedoms" you listed aren't freedoms at all. They're rights and privileges. I don't have the freedom to healthcare. I don't have the freedom to roads. You're describing rights that need to be agreed upon within a society, not something determined by human freedom. You believe that you have the right to healthcare, roads, and education. I believe that you should have the freedom to say so, and the freedom to use those things should they be available to you. When we start talking about things like American healthcare policy, we're getting tangential to the point. The way this is constructed has far less to do with freedom and a lot more to do with American policy and attitudes at large. Socialized medicine and healthcare isn't exactly fantastic either.

You may say that they're rights and privileges as opposed to freedoms, but ask yourself this: is a life devoid of rights and privilege really a free one? Again, it all comes down to how you define freedom, but from the perspective of someone who was once very strongly acquainted with libertarian philosophy, I've ultimately come to regard that point of view as severely wanting.

 

[gang weeder]

I think we should ultimately define what "freedom" really means though, because I find that many people seem to lack a defensible or useful definition of the term.

The ability to form and choose between communities. A lot of people have an overly individualistic view in which "freedom" means being able to literally do whatever you want free from any social consequence (horseshoe moment where I acknowledge that SJWs actually have a point here). This is how you get trannies demanding that you use their heckin' pronouns.

The trannies should be free to associate with each other in a community of fellow freaks, but they should not be able to impose their insanity on other actual sane communities.

Instead of "God", a better guarantee of freedom might be a belief in basic human dignity.

I mean, in the case of Christianity, and especially of America in specific, those two things were explicitly tied together. As others have pointed out, rejecting "God" in favor of "basic human dignity" as a religious principle changes nothing in practice. You just took that three letter word "God" out of the equation and changed His name to "basic human dignity."

 

[draggs]

If you say so, Whittaker Chambers

To be more serious, the postulation is accurate

 

[Osmosis Jones]

@Hellbound Hellhound it's because our posts are too long and autistic for the quote function.

You used America as the de facto example of a free country because you've bought into America's national mythology; not because it bears any resemblance to the actual facts. The reality is that America is very far from a free country: it has more incarcerated citizens per capita than any other country on the planet, a highly controlled political and media establishment which prevents any real opposition to the status quo, and a level of state surveillance and police powers that would make the Stasi proud.

Even the facts surrounding America's founding have been largely embellished in the American psyche: America certainly wasn't founded as a free country; the founding fathers were wealthy, mercantile warlords who actively profiteered from slavery and human trafficking, and the citizens who comprised the 13 colonies, far from being driven by a desire to escape persecution—as is often claimed—were often much more keen on having the license to persecute others (see: Salem Witch trials).

This isn't to say that America doesn't have some good credentials when it comes to upholding freedom: the US Constitution is, in many respects, an enviable document, and the First Amendment in particular is something which I think all countries ideally ought to have, but generally speaking, the US is very far from what I would describe as a free society, certainly not relative to many other countries I could mention.

How is this not an argument to my credit? No country in the world is completely free by any means or standards. Five Eyes, PRISM, NSA, black projects, etc. only took off as the technological era accelerated surveillance technology. By that point we were already too far separated from piety. Then you go on to say that the US has an enviable document that all countries should have. I agree with you, so I don't know what your point is.

You don't care about all of the evidence which contradicts your assumption? Because that kind of implies that you're not interested in approaching the debate with any intellectual honesty. For my part, I'm certainly interested to hear some evidence from you that religion makes societies freer, because so far, the evidence has lead me to understand that the opposite seems to be true: Afghanistan is very clearly not a freer society than the Netherlands, for example; Uganda is very clearly not a freer society than Denmark.

As for the idea that a sincere belief in God could incentivize those in power not to become too hubristic, or could somehow disincentivize them from trampling upon the rights of others, I find that to be rather quaint. Unfortunately however, I think it's built upon an incorrect assumption about the kind of people who are drawn to power in the first place, and on a practical level, we simply have too many examples of people in power invoking personal piety as a means of placating the masses, only to then go on exploiting them.

To disarm the citizens against this by instilling within them the credulous assumption that religiosity equates to superior empathy and trustworthiness appears to me to be very unwise.

My argument is founded on the semantics of Christianity and its foundations in society as well as how it brought upon enviable American freedoms. If you want to deny outright that the American founding documents based on Christian values provide freedoms that are good for everyone, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't naively assume a power hungry leader of a nation will literally fear God. On the contrary, I expect him to defy God and religion and use it to his advantage. The key lies in a faithful, practising, fundamentalist society not allowing someone who defies God to stay in power. This is less about placating masses and more about adding true value to freedom, because without God there is no purpose for freedom.

Except "free as you are in nature" often means "not very free at all", which is precisely why I am inclined to disagree with the idea that freedom is best defined along these lines. A lone hunter-gatherer in the wilderness may be free from authority figures telling them what to do, but in practical terms, what freedoms do they ultimately have? Essentially: the freedom to hunt and gather or starve to death, and that's pretty much it.

My contention is that this is hardly a useful or defensible way to measure freedom; a much better way is through the presence of choice.

Is there a difference between "not having authority figures tell them what to do" and having the freedom to choose? The observation about the hunter is correct but he is still free to do as he pleases. It is also wildly simplified for a hypothetical. If there is a man, he likely has a family and a community he resides in. To assume his options are hunt or die is horribly narrow because in reality, there are far more factors at play.

You may say that they're rights and privileges as opposed to freedoms, but ask yourself this: is a life devoid of rights and privilege really a free one? Again, it all comes down to how you define freedom, but from the perspective of someone who was once very strongly acquainted with libertarian philosophy, I've ultimately come to regard that point of view as severely wanting.

I didn't say life should be devoid of rights and privileges, I said you're describing rights and privileges.

 

[Tinfoil]

You are here saying that religion is required for a moral code. Why? Why are you so inherently evil that you will commit murder, theft, arson and rape - because a book told you it was not right? Why are you so fucked up that unless a book tells you not to do these things, you will? Was it the same God that smiled down and asked the Pope to use his legal team to shut down rape and child abuse allegations? Prisons are full of God Fearing people.

Thinking out loud here. How many people are just born good people? I do wonder at large, how many people have their moral framework shaped by their early life parents/media/teachers/peers. You might not see them as religious frameworks. But almost all the ten commandments are instilled culturally by osmosis to us at a young age without having even invoked God.

If I was raised in an Islamic country, would I still be the same good person as if I was raised in a Christian country? How would my morals differ?

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

If God were real and Christianity a true religion, the Constitution should be thrown into a shredder at once and rendered into toilet paper. You don't need "freedoms" or a "Bill of Rights" if God is real, because the Bible spells out exactly what a Christian society looks like. The Bible is also clear the Founding Fathers were almost all heretics and unbelievers who have spent the past 200 years burning in the pit of hell, where they will spend eternity.

The only reason we have freedom is because people don't actually believe the Bible and commit to various forms of heresy. Like the First Amendment is absolute bullshit biblically, you don't have the right to freedom of religion and you don't have the right to blasphemy God (blasphemy law was only ever allowed at the state level).

 

[The Curmudgeon]

The ability to form and choose between communities. A lot of people have an overly individualistic view in which "freedom" means being able to literally do whatever you want free from any social consequence (horseshoe moment where I acknowledge that SJWs actually have a point here). This is how you get trannies demanding that you use their heckin' pronouns.

The trannies should be free to associate with each other in a community of fellow freaks, but they should not be able to impose their insanity on other actual sane communities.

That's actually a fair point. I think so. People have confused entitlement with empowerment. There are few or no checks and balances in our society to keep awful people in check. Many people think that simply belonging to a group absolves them of any responsibility too.

On topic:

Spoiler: My two cents.

Personally, I believe that religion in and of itself is neutral. Whether we like it or not, it's part of being human. Politics, philosophy, and lifestyles are often substitutes for religion. I also feel this way about science. I support science and believe it is a neutral, and necessary, part of being human. However, like religion, science can be misused and misrepresented. Same goes for politics, philosophy, and lifestyles.

Ultimately, it seems like whether these institutions, and people who believe in them, are good or not depends on the cultural framework they live in. I can say without exaggeration that I've known too many people who were "good Christians," but they weren't good people. Their beliefs weren't reflected in their behavior or relationships. They were shitty people who kept getting worse. All that mattered to them was their unconditional faith in Jesus, who was basically their cosmic enabler, and the idea they could go to Heaven and always be forgiven simply because they had faith. This left a very negative impression on me. Why would Jesus not care that you're a bully, a thug, a liar, a hypocrite, or a criminal? Why would Jesus reward you with eternal life in Heaven and unconditional, endless forgiveness just for having faith? I still find that disgusting. In that case, religion is evil as fuck.

To be fair, I have also known Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, and even other atheists who use their beliefs to absolve them. Atheists will resort to politics, philosophy, and/or lifestyles as their excuse for being a piece of shit. Lately, activism certainly fills the emotional void too.

Put another way, culture is the ultimate determining factor. Religion and other institutions shape our culture, so they're certainly important. We need balance in our society to make our culture work. Freedom becomes problematic when there is no sense of community or responsibility. When freedom is conflated with entitlement, then we no longer live in a free society but a chaotic one. We need civil society to make freedom work. Otherwise, we have anomie not freedom.

 

[Spud]

Violence is the supreme authority in to which all other authority is derived from. If you want to be free you need to be willing to commit violence against those who would seek to enslave you be it Neo-liberal globalist or right wing christian fundamentals.

 

[The Curmudgeon]

Because I need to get this out of my system, I have another thing I'd like to add to this topic.

Spoiler: Another personal diatribe.

Again personally, I feel like a secular society can work if there's still some form of belief holding everyone together. In the United States, we had the unique opportunity of doing this with civic nationalism and civic virtue. We could believe in America. It was supposed to bind everyone together regardless of what they are or where they're from. According to certain people, it is no longer politically correct to believe in your country. Without that, people devolve into shameless, belligerent tribalism. Granted, civic nationalism isn't perfect and is liable to suffer from the same problems as any other belief system. I'm simply using it as a possible viable alternative to ethnic and/or religious nationalism. I would like to believe that believing in your country, your nation, would be a worthwhile belief that can bring people together. We could be Americans together.

There are several real world examples of what America could become:

One is India. It's multicultural, but it's slowly but surely turning away from that. The majority is embracing the concept of Hindutva because they've become disillusioned with multiculturalism. Personally, I don't fault them for that because 1) it's their business, not ours and 2) it's a good example of how multiculturalism without any genuine civic nationalism can go awry. The majority found the melting pot distasteful. India never had civic nationalism nor a reason to embrace it. So now they're developing something to replace it.

Then there is China. They're multicultural, but they have Communism as a unifier. Granted, it unifies at gun point. They have substituted civic nationalism with the CCP. You're loyal not because you want to believe in it, but because you have to or else. It's a totalitarian one party state and not something our country should aspire to be. This is scary alternative to civic nationalism that would be nice to avoid at all costs.

Next there's Brazil. I'm convinced that the United States will most like end up like Brazil rather than India or China. Why? Because Brazil is a more or less Westernized country that superficially identifies as a liberal democracy. It's only barely held together by corruption and decadence. There is no belief in Brazil. There is no clear majority so there can't be a Brazilian Hindutva. There is no Braziian equavilent to the CCP so no iron-fisted one party rule. Instead, it's a multicultural shithole held together by corrupt elites who keep the fractured populace in line with assorted distractions.

Sorry for the long spiel. I'm sure I'm wrong in different ways, but that's how I feel about it. It's possible to have a civil society without a proper religion, but it would require something with the same pith as religion. That's easier said than done. Believing in America was a beautiful alternative in my opinion.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Imagine still being an atheist in 2022 lmao, when America turned it's back on Christianity and things immediately started to slide into howling, insane degeneracy.

Imagine not being able to understand why Christianity is needed, the test of time is the ultimate test of anything and the last decade and change has proven the superiority of Christianity over secularism.

Mathematical equations dont' burn people for eternity for disbelief or for failing to acknowledge the Son of Math.

Where did I even mention eternal damnation? It isn't so much fear of eternal damnation that makes it work as it is the acknowledgment of a higher power that is not in man's control.

Again, if a society doesn't acknowledge 2+2=4, it's doomed and our modern society doesn't, it says the most insane bullshit like a penis can be female and a vagina can be male.

What makes a society acknowledge 2+2=4 best is when it's wrapped up in a Religion and belief in God or some sort of higher power, the human psyche needs story, metaphor and parable in order to fully grasp this concept.

In other words, we have to kind of personify 2+2=4 being something like us, a conscious, thinking, decision making entity, it's up to you whether you personally where you believe in God literally, but 2+2=4 no matter what and Religion is what works best for the human psyche and best for human society in order for that concept to fully take shape, any thinking, rational person should be able to understand this when contrasted with the modern alternative.

It ain't so much about the afterlife, the benefits of Religion can be experienced while we're here on this Earth and the alternative and the Hell on Earth it creates is what we're already living in and it will only get worse.

I spent the first half of my life as deeply religious as anyone else you've ever met - probably more so. Went around converting people, handed out books, attended seminars and events, donated everything. So I know what I am talking about. I despise organized religion, I do not despise the people in them as they are usually there for the right reasons to be a better person, and I despise the label organized religions give to those who refuse to follow their dogma as immoral. It is simply untrue.

Good people are good people. they can belong to a vast variety of religions often in conflict with one another, they can be members of multiple political wings, or they can be atheists. A good person is a good person.

Ah, see here's the trouble, most people are not good, most people are sheep that do what they're told by authority, currently authority tells them to submit to or overlook pure evil and far too many are either overlooking it or working actively for it because they fear going against authority, which today is mainstream corporate culture, media, the Democrat party and the Big Brother of Twitter lynch mobs.

This evil, which we call Wokeism, has only been able to achieve the power it has achieved thanks to the vacuum left in American society by it's turning it's back on traditional Christian morality, already as we speak children are being abused by what we call troonism, today it's troonism, tomorrow it'll be the normalization of sexual molestation, you ok with that stuff? Atheism won't stop it, atheism has and will continue to cuck out when stacked up against Wokeism, look at Penn Jilette allowing his daughter to troon out for example, the only thing that's going to stop it is a return to traditional Christian morality.

For the record, I was raised a Christian but I went through a phase where I was very secular and a "I fucking love science" type, atheists take a very rosy view of humanity and human nature and I can see the appeal of the idea that secular rationality and science can save mankind and lead to the whole Star Trek type future.

The trouble is, the last decade has proven that that's all bullshit, the whole 2000s era, fedora tipping, "I fucking love science", nerd culture, Mythbusters etc culture got completely fucked in the ass by Woke, it's now completely powerless and irrelevant, it's not going to stop Woke from destroying everything, only Religion will or specifically in the context of western culture, Christianity.

Again, whether you believe in God literally is up to you, but any rational, decent person should be able to see why the impact Religion has on society is superior to secularism, Wokeism is like a virus, Religion is like the antibodies.

I'm sure all this has happened before which is why the Bible has the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is what we are now, what do you think will work better? Morality that was tried and tested over thousands of years or insane bullshit come up with by nuts on the internet over the last 10?

I'm not saying American society has to become hardcore fundamentalists like the Muslim world, I think where we had a good balance was the 80s and 90s, where mainstream culture was still fairly secular, there was plenty of sexual content in media etc, but it was taboo in mainstream culture to really badmouth Christianity, this changed in the 2000s when the mainstream culture started to really badmouth and mock Christianity and it's only lead to everything getting worse since.

Everyone should have a healthy respect for Christianity, Christianity should be the baseline of morality in society, not Wokeism, even secular people should be able to understand why Christianity as the moral baseline is superior to Wokeism.

 

[AMHOLIO]

You know every so often we just reinvent the debate between man being moral without religion again and it sure is something.

Violence is the supreme authority in to which all other authority is derived from. If you want to be free you need to be willing to commit violence against those who would seek to enslave you be it Neo-liberal globalist or right wing christian fundamentals.

 

[Pissmaster]