What a waste

[Zzyzx]

.
Ancient cultures devoted large amounts of time and resources to worshiping their "gods", sacrificed food and animals (even people), built palaces and temples of worship, etc. It would seem as though using that time and the resources to better the lot of common people would have been more appropriate.

Are modern societies doing the same thing?

[connermt]

[Replying to post 30 by dianaiad]

You really, really, REALLY don't want to ask that question.

What, are you psychic now; a mind reader? I asked it for a reason

If there is no God, then every society is an 'atheistic' society, isn't it?

Absolutely not. It's about BELIEF not actuality. Look around. There is no proof of god, yet people BELIEVE there is a god and thus, there's a [insert religious name here] society.
Now if you would have said "If people believe there is no God, then every society is an 'atheistic' society, isn't it?" the answer would be yes.
You people fail to accept that BELIEF isn't actuality time & time & time again.

So how would an atheistic culture be any different?

Different from....apples? Tornados....?
Since you like to play word games, let's make sure you're using all the correct words before we jump to conclusions.

If people don't worship a deity, they worship a leader...if they don't worship a leader, they worship....something.

Worship doesn't make a religion. I would have thought you would have understood that but ok....

However, I honestly do not see how an atheistic society would be any different, especially if there is no deity in charge of anything.

It might not have been. Or it might have been. That's the point.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 30 by dianaiad]

You really, really, REALLY don't want to ask that question.

What, are you psychic now; a mind reader? I asked it for a reason

If there is no God, then every society is an 'atheistic' society, isn't it?

Absolutely not. It's about BELIEF not actuality. Look around. There is no proof of god, yet people BELIEVE there is a god and thus, there's a [insert religious name here] society.
Now if you would have said "If people believe there is no God, then every society is an 'atheistic' society, isn't it?" the answer would be yes.
You people fail to accept that BELIEF isn't actuality time & time & time again.

So how would an atheistic culture be any different?

Different from....apples? Tornados....?
Since you like to play word games, let's make sure you're using all the correct words before we jump to conclusions.

If people don't worship a deity, they worship a leader...if they don't worship a leader, they worship....something.

Worship doesn't make a religion. I would have thought you would have understood that but ok....

However, I honestly do not see how an atheistic society would be any different, especially if there is no deity in charge of anything.

It might not have been. Or it might have been. That's the point.

Well, this is the irony I spoke of, that I am enjoying in this conversation.

What evidence do you have that an atheistic society (as defined by you) would have been any different--never mind any better--than a theistic (as defined by you) society?

The only evidence we have of the results of an atheistic society tells us that such an approach is not one that leads to sweetness, goodness, and non-violence. Quite the opposite, actually, Quite murderously opposite,

Now I'm willing to concede that we only have the 'top down' sort of atheistic society to work with, here. I do not know of...and evidently neither do you...any society that is intrinsically atheistic that has been on the planet, and has made any sort of moral, scientific, artistic or philosophical mark on human thought. Shoot, I don't think either of us know of an atheistic (or rather, non-religious) sort of society, period.

So....what is your evidence that one would have, or even might have, been 'better,' given the intensely negative evidence that societies upon which atheism has been imposed provides us?

Millions upon millions of people killed; Thousands of years of culture and achievements destroyed (and that's just Mao).

Hey.

Isn't one of your arguments regarding 'faith' that it is based upon no evidence? Wouldn't you say that your claim (or hope or wish or whatever it is) that an atheistic society would be less murderous than a theistic one is based upon, er....

absolutely no evidence whatsoever--indeed, is held in spite of the fact that any evidence we do have is quite contrary to your hope?

I, at least, have subjective (burning in the bosom type) confirmation of my religious beliefs. What have you got to confirm your idea, here, that an atheistic society would be kinder, less murderous, more rational, etc, than a theistic one?

FREE societies are better, I'll grant you; that is, societies that allow freedom to worship, or not, as the individuals prefer.

But completely atheistic societies? We have absolutely no data on that.
..........either no data, or data that contradicts your hypothesis.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 32 by dianaiad]

...What evidence do you have that an atheistic society (as defined by you)

Past the 'believing in no god' general definition, I never define an atheisitic society or ID'd one.

...what is your evidence that one would have, or even might have, been 'better,' given the intensely negative evidence that societies upon which atheism has been imposed provides us?

Can you point to where I said it WAS better and not COULD have been better or COULDN'T have been better?

Isn't one of your arguments regarding 'faith' that it is based upon no evidence?

Nope. I'm not The Faith Police, so while I say it SHOULD be based upon no facts, it CAN be based on facts. People have faith in good and bad things for good and bad (and no) reason

What have you got to confirm your idea, here, that an atheistic society would be kinder, less murderous, more rational, etc, than a theistic one?

If we difine better as WITHOUT GOD, then I would say YES it would be better. But better is a incredibly vague term thus I make no solid statement of fact until the term is defined.

We have absolutely no data on that.

Agreed - only opinons

...either no data, or data that contradicts your hypothesis.

Obviously, you are clueless of my hypothesis based on your amzningly incorrect statements above, independent of my statements prior.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 32 by dianaiad]

...What evidence do you have that an atheistic society (as defined by you)

Past the 'believing in no god' general definition, I never define an atheisitic society or ID'd one.

That is your definition: 'believing in no god.' I, personally, think that if there isn't a God, then every society would be an 'atheistic' one, since all the ideas they have about deity would be coming out of their own heads, exactly the way all the philosophies resulting from a society without a belief in deity would be coming out of their own heads.

So...I asked you about the evidence of a an atheistic society...your definition of atheistic.

Which is, as you mention, a society without a belief in god.

...what is your evidence that one would have, or even might have, been 'better,' given the intensely negative evidence that societies upon which atheism has been imposed provides us?

Can you point to where I said it WAS better and not COULD have been better or COULDN'T have been better?

Isn't one of your arguments regarding 'faith' that it is based upon no evidence?

Nope. I'm not The Faith Police, so while I say it SHOULD be based upon no facts, it CAN be based on facts. People have faith in good and bad things for good and bad (and no) reason

What have you got to confirm your idea, here, that an atheistic society would be kinder, less murderous, more rational, etc, than a theistic one?

If we difine better as WITHOUT GOD, then I would say YES it would be better. But better is a incredibly vague term thus I make no solid statement of fact until the term is defined.

Why would a simple belief that there is no God be better than a belief IN God, absent anything else?

We have absolutely no data on that.

Agreed - only opinons

...either no data, or data that contradicts your hypothesis.

Obviously, you are clueless of my hypothesis based on your amzningly incorrect statements above, independent of my statements prior.

Connermt, do you, or do you not, define 'faith' as 'belief without evidence' and confine it strictly to religious views....and have you, or have you not, been very clear that even though the dictionary and the majority of English speakers disagree with you, that your stated definition is the one you will use, and the one you will argue with?

Indeed, the thread 'Negative Faith' has several examples of your opinion regarding faith, which is why I am noting the irony here of your hope...without any evidence whatsoever, objective OR subjective...that an atheistic society would be 'better' in any way than a theistic one.

Oh, and 'lack of belief in deity' would only be 'better' in your own view; what would such a lack of belief do for anybody? Better hospitals? Better science? Better buildings? Better politics?

See, that's the thing; the only evidence we have than an atheistic society would be 'different' from a theistic one is that which shows that an atheistic society is a nastier place to be in; more dangerous, more polluting, far less free....yeah, not good.

But, as I conceded, this is for societies where atheism is imposed upon the citizenry from the top down, politically.

For societies which are intrinsically atheist, in which there is no belief in a deity evident? We have absolutely no evidence at all that such a society would be better, worse, or any different from, a theistic one. None. Zip.

.............and if there is no God, so that all societies are 'without God,' and only think they have one to worship, the problem is worse; in that case, all the evidence shows us that a purely atheistic society just ain't gonna happen. There's something about humans that seems to produce religion; it's a part of us.

Seems to me, then, that God or not (and remember, I'm a bone deep theist, here) that an atheist society would be, if not impossible, then exactly like a theistic one, with all the same motives, problems, murderous or honorable intentions, political shenanigans, power grabbing or altruism that religious societies have.

I think we can call that one 'proven,' because we have never had a society that did not have to deal with such things. Certainly we've never had one that has given us any evidence that they didn't deal with such things.

Yeah, I think you may be going "on faith" (according to your own definition of 'faith') a lot more than theists do. We, at least, have something to hang our hopes on, even if you don't like the quality of the evidence we have.

I don't see, in your hope for a utopian atheistic society, any evidence at all, objective or subjective.

[1213]

.
Ancient cultures devoted large amounts of time and resources to worshiping their "gods", sacrificed food and animals (even people), built palaces and temples of worship, etc. It would seem as though using that time and the resources to better the lot of common people would have been more appropriate.

Are modern societies doing the same thing?

Interesting question, I can’t answer, because I don’t know how “waste� is defined in this. It seems to me that all that is from this world will be destroyed eventually and is wasted. I don’t think any natural things lasts, so why bother doing anything?

Why bother? Because you might want to. Isn't that enough?

You can sit and wait to die if you want, but I choose to look around while I can.

Yes, but if al will be destroyed at one point, why would something else than “built palaces and temples of worship, etc� be less waste? If the result will eventually be the same, does it really matter to what you waste your time? Not in my opinion and therefore it seems to me that modern societies are doing the same.

However, personally I think life is not wasted, if person uses it to help other people and does good things.

[Zzyzx]

.

Oh, and 'lack of belief in deity' would only be 'better' in your own view; what would such a lack of belief do for anybody? Better hospitals? Better science? Better buildings? Better politics?

Hospitals, science, buildings, politics are a function of a society – not a religion or lack of religion. European and Asian nations that are minimally religious have all the above.

For societies which are intrinsically atheist, in which there is no belief in a deity evident? We have absolutely no evidence at all that such a society would be better, worse, or any different from, a theistic one. None. Zip.

Agreed. Therefore any comments about an "Atheistic society" are hypothetical or irrational. Any finger-pointing at disreputable or disruptive societies in the past (or present) are meaningless.

.............and if there is no God, so that all societies are 'without God,' and only think they have one to worship, the problem is worse; in that case, all the evidence shows us that a purely atheistic society just ain't gonna happen. There's something about humans that seems to produce religion; it's a part of us.

Humans seem inclined to invent religions and gods to explain what they do not understand or to provide an external code of conduct to follow.

Many people seem unable to formulate their own morals and ethics based upon their society and their experience – but rely on religion to provide that guidance for them.

Others are confident that they are capable of learning from their society and their personal experience to formulate personal moral / ethical codes and abide by them (without threat of eternal punishment).

Seems to me, then, that God or not (and remember, I'm a bone deep theist, here) that an atheist society would be, if not impossible, then exactly like a theistic one, with all the same motives, problems, murderous or honorable intentions, political shenanigans, power grabbing or altruism that religious societies have.

If an "Atheistic society" would be "exactly like a theistic one" WHY bother with the baggage of theism?

I think we can call that one 'proven,' because we have never had a society that did not have to deal with such things. Certainly we've never had one that has given us any evidence that they didn't deal with such things.

Societies that are composed largely of people who do not believe in gods are not "Atheistic societies" but are . . . societies. Non-belief does not define the society or shape it in any way.

Several European nations are moving strongly toward being composed largely of non-believers (and the US is moving in the same direction but seems to be a generation or two behind). Little about the societies seems to have changed as they abandoned religion.

Yeah, I think you may be going "on faith" (according to your own definition of 'faith') a lot more than theists do. We, at least, have something to hang our hopes on, even if you don't like the quality of the evidence we have.

Rather than "faith" (which often connotes supernatural beliefs) this Non-Theist operates on the basis of confidence in observation, analysis and conclusions.

I do not have "faith" that my truck will start or that someone loves me – but instead consider experience. Since the truck has started every time for many years and is well maintained, I trust that it will start the next time also. If someone declares love but acts in unloving ways I will conclude that their actions belie their words. If they consistently act in loving ways I will conclude that they reflect love.

I don't see, in your hope for a utopian atheistic society, any evidence at all, objective or subjective.

Utopian and Atheistic need not be conjoined. They are separate concepts.

Utopia is defined as: An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects.

Atheism is defined as: Without belief in gods

The term utopian can be applied to any proposed society, religious or not, that strives toward (or achieves) perfection in social, political and moral aspects. Some religious groups and some non-religious groups have aspired toward this goal. To the best of my knowledge none have even come close.



In previous posts you pointed out that religious monuments and palaces of worship had endured many centuries and are still standing (and in some cases still useful). That much I agree with. But ask, SO WHAT?

The OP distinctly focused upon the waste of time and resources in constructing such edifices and did not inclued accomplishments of societies that were not directly related to worshiping of gods.

For instance: The Roman empire, though at least nominally religious (perhaps for political purposes), constructed useful things such as roadways and aqueducts that served the population (some of which are still in use).

What useful purpose do palaces of worship serve (other than the interests of organized religion itself and its hierarchy or "priest class")?






BTW: The largest "charitable" organization in the US that "helps" disadvantaged people is the US government (by taking from those not in need, subtracting substantial overhead cost, and distributing to "qualified" individuals and groups).

Churches devote approximately ONE percent (0.001) of their income to benevolent activities. According to a survey by Evangelical Christian Credit Union, local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget, 3 percent of their budget for children’s and youth programs, and 2 percent for adult programs.
http://holysoup.com/2013/08/06/the-shoc ... h-budgets/
Supported by https://www.eccu.org/resources/advisory ... yreports20

[dianaiad]

.

Oh, and 'lack of belief in deity' would only be 'better' in your own view; what would such a lack of belief do for anybody? Better hospitals? Better science? Better buildings? Better politics?

Hospitals, science, buildings, politics are a function of a society – not a religion or lack of religion. European and Asian nations that are minimally religious have all the above.

Yes they do...but 'minimally religious' is not 'atheist.' At most you could call them 'secular,' and to be very honest, the European nation hospitals tend to be handed down to society by religions, and the Asian hospitals...WHICH Asian nations are you talking about, btw, which you call 'minimally religious?' China? Oh, my....I do hope you aren't comparing Chinese medical care to that which you can find in nations that didn't have to deal with Mao.

I do notice, for instance, that nobody in the USA is going TO China for their advanced medical care.

I can tell you that I won't be doing that: good grief, If I were in China right now, I'd be buried.

For societies which are intrinsically atheist, in which there is no belief in a deity evident? We have absolutely no evidence at all that such a society would be better, worse, or any different from, a theistic one. None. Zip.

Agreed. Therefore any comments about an "Atheistic society" are hypothetical or irrational. Any finger-pointing at disreputable or disruptive societies in the past (or present) are meaningless.

.............and if there is no God, so that all societies are 'without God,' and only think they have one to worship, the problem is worse; in that case, all the evidence shows us that a purely atheistic society just ain't gonna happen. There's something about humans that seems to produce religion; it's a part of us.

Humans seem inclined to invent religions and gods to explain what they do not understand or to provide an external code of conduct to follow.

Many people seem unable to formulate their own morals and ethics based upon their society and their experience – but rely on religion to provide that guidance for them.

Others are confident that they are capable of learning from their society and their personal experience to formulate personal moral / ethical codes and abide by them (without threat of eternal punishment).

Seems to me, then, that God or not (and remember, I'm a bone deep theist, here) that an atheist society would be, if not impossible, then exactly like a theistic one, with all the same motives, problems, murderous or honorable intentions, political shenanigans, power grabbing or altruism that religious societies have.

If an "Atheistic society" would be "exactly like a theistic one" WHY bother with the baggage of theism?

Because people actually believe in a deity? Turn the question around: if a theist culture would be like an atheist one, why force people to give up their faith in deity? What makes you think everyone would?

The premise, here, seems to be that 'giving up the baggage of theism' is a good thing. I don't see why it would. Atheists have been, are, and can be just as nasty as any theist ever conceived. So....if it's a difference that makes no difference, why would atheism be 'better?' Especially since the only evidence we have in the matter is that it, well....isn't?

I think we can call that one 'proven,' because we have never had a society that did not have to deal with such things. Certainly we've never had one that has given us any evidence that they didn't deal with such things.

Societies that are composed largely of people who do not believe in gods are not "Atheistic societies" but are . . . societies. Non-belief does not define the society or shape it in any way.

My point precisely.

Yet the claim here is that an atheistic society would be better simply by virtue of being atheist. I'm pointing out, as you just have, that no....there's no evidence that it would be.

Several European nations are moving strongly toward being composed largely of non-believers (and the US is moving in the same direction but seems to be a generation or two behind). Little about the societies seems to have changed as they abandoned religion.

Secularism is not atheism. Thats one.

For two....the world has long been comprised mostly of those who simply 'don't go to church.' The difference here, it seems to me, isn't so much that there a whole bunch of people who suddenly don't believe in God, but that because these nations are becoming more secular (and freedom to believe, or not believe, is becoming more usual) that those who simply live their lives are more 'upfront' about that. I could be wrong, but something tells me I'm not. At least, not very.

Yeah, I think you may be going "on faith" (according to your own definition of 'faith') a lot more than theists do. We, at least, have something to hang our hopes on, even if you don't like the quality of the evidence we have.

Rather than "faith" (which often connotes supernatural beliefs) this Non-Theist operates on the basis of confidence in observation, analysis and conclusions.

I do not have "faith" that my truck will start or that someone loves me – but instead consider experience. Since the truck has started every time for many years and is well maintained, I trust that it will start the next time also. If someone declares love but acts in unloving ways I will conclude that their actions belie their words. If they consistently act in loving ways I will conclude that they reflect love. [/quote]

OK, the problem is, 'faith' is synonymous with 'trust,' and is used frequently in non-religious areas. "Full faith and trust' is a legal term we are all familiar with; being a 'faithful' spouse. "I have faith in you." "Don't you have any faith in your own abilities?" Like that.

So 'faith' is NOT purely religious, nor does the meaning change when it is applied to religious things; it still means 'trust,' and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the quality of the evidence that inspires that trust.

I gave a few examples of this; the cop who put his faith in a freeway...a faith that, please pardon me, had a lot more evidence going for it than yours in the idea that your car will start everytime you hit the ignition switch. He was wrong; that freeway fell down.

Your car will, at some point, fail to start for someone when the ignition switch is turned. That WILL happen. You have faith that your spouse and children love you, and that faith is based on their actions, but...are you sure that their actions are based entirely on love? Now your faith in them may be, and I hope that it is, solidly based. However, some people have faith in the love of their spouses, and get severely disappointed. Happens all the time.

"Faith" + "Trust." Simple as that; you trust that what you believe to be true is true enough to behave as if it's true. You trust that your car will start; you have faith that it will, so you turn the ignition. In fact, you have so much faith that it will start that you made promises on the strength of this; if it doesn't start, you might be late to work, or to a meeting, or to pick your kids up. But you aren't worried; it will start. You have faith. That's why you got in the car and started it just in time, and didn't go out and test it two hours earlier so that you could walk there or call a taxi just in case.

But someday....someday, your car won't start. That might happen when YOU attempt to start it. In fact, you won't know that it will start until, voila', it starts. Then and only then does faith stop being faith and become something else; knowledge.

But I'll tell you what: when the word 'faith' is never, EVER used in a non-religious manner, and comes to mean something other than 'trust,' I'll concede the point. However, at the moment?

Faith = Trust, and for the one doing the trusting, it's exactly the same thing, whether the beliefs he places his trust in is in his version of God...or that your car will start. The only difference is in the quality of the evidence.


But tell me: If, for some reason, I knew that some kids had gotten into your garage last night and messed with your sparkplug wires, or pulled your ignition, so that I was aware that your trust that your car would start was very misplaced, do I then get to insist that your trust is actually 'faith,' because it's based on belief alone and not fact? Because, of course, at that point it would be.

Why is what I have 'faith' and not 'trust,' because YOU don't like the evidence for the beliefs I hold?

I've never been able to figure that one out.

[Jashwell]

.

Oh, and 'lack of belief in deity' would only be 'better' in your own view; what would such a lack of belief do for anybody? Better hospitals? Better science? Better buildings? Better politics?

Hospitals, science, buildings, politics are a function of a society – not a religion or lack of religion. European and Asian nations that are minimally religious have all the above.

Yes they do...but 'minimally religious' is not 'atheist.' At most you could call them 'secular,' and to be very honest, the European nation hospitals tend to be handed down to society by religions, and the Asian hospitals...WHICH Asian nations are you talking about, btw, which you call 'minimally religious?' China? Oh, my....I do hope you aren't comparing Chinese medical care to that which you can find in nations that didn't have to deal with Mao.

I do notice, for instance, that nobody in the USA is going TO China for their advanced medical care.

"Handed down by religion"
We aren't in a position to evaluate where it came from, because the majority of humans have been religious.
For instance, between about a thousand years ago and five hundred years ago you would be executed for not being Christian, in much of what is now western culture. Even if this were not the case, the overwhelming majority of the population were.

Is anyone surprised that atheists aren't from over five hundred years ago aren't as famed and widespread for their inventions and ideas?

For societies which are intrinsically atheist, in which there is no belief in a deity evident? We have absolutely no evidence at all that such a society would be better, worse, or any different from, a theistic one. None. Zip.

Agreed. Therefore any comments about an "Atheistic society" are hypothetical or irrational. Any finger-pointing at disreputable or disruptive societies in the past (or present) are meaningless.

.............and if there is no God, so that all societies are 'without God,' and only think they have one to worship, the problem is worse; in that case, all the evidence shows us that a purely atheistic society just ain't gonna happen. There's something about humans that seems to produce religion; it's a part of us.

Humans seem inclined to invent religions and gods to explain what they do not understand or to provide an external code of conduct to follow.

Many people seem unable to formulate their own morals and ethics based upon their society and their experience – but rely on religion to provide that guidance for them.

Others are confident that they are capable of learning from their society and their personal experience to formulate personal moral / ethical codes and abide by them (without threat of eternal punishment).

Seems to me, then, that God or not (and remember, I'm a bone deep theist, here) that an atheist society would be, if not impossible, then exactly like a theistic one, with all the same motives, problems, murderous or honorable intentions, political shenanigans, power grabbing or altruism that religious societies have.

If an "Atheistic society" would be "exactly like a theistic one" WHY bother with the baggage of theism?

Because people actually believe in a deity? Turn the question around: if a theist culture would be like an atheist one, why force people to give up their faith in deity? What makes you think everyone would?

The premise, here, seems to be that 'giving up the baggage of theism' is a good thing. I don't see why it would. Atheists have been, are, and can be just as nasty as any theist ever conceived. So....if it's a difference that makes no difference, why would atheism be 'better?' Especially since the only evidence we have in the matter is that it, well....isn't?

I understand what you're getting at, but here's a few points to consider:

Most major religions are expensive. Temples, prayer rooms, lots of time and effort. Sometimes even emotional stress stemming from the religion.
This might not directly address theism, but I think most people from many religious cultures (there are some cultures like judaism where there are a surprisingly high number of atheists) would stop funding these things if they discovered that their beliefs were wrong.

If it is the case that atheism is more reasonable, wouldn't you want people to stop being theists?

OK, the problem is, 'faith' is synonymous with 'trust,' and is used frequently in non-religious areas. "Full faith and trust' is a legal term we are all familiar with; being a 'faithful' spouse. "I have faith in you." "Don't you have any faith in your own abilities?" Like that.

So 'faith' is NOT purely religious, nor does the meaning change when it is applied to religious things; it still means 'trust,' and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the quality of the evidence that inspires that trust.

I gave a few examples of this; the cop who put his faith in a freeway...a faith that, please pardon me, had a lot more evidence going for it than yours in the idea that your car will start everytime you hit the ignition switch. He was wrong; that freeway fell down.

Your car will, at some point, fail to start for someone when the ignition switch is turned. That WILL happen. You have faith that your spouse and children love you, and that faith is based on their actions, but...are you sure that their actions are based entirely on love? Now your faith in them may be, and I hope that it is, solidly based. However, some people have faith in the love of their spouses, and get severely disappointed. Happens all the time.

"Faith" + "Trust." Simple as that; you trust that what you believe to be true is true enough to behave as if it's true. You trust that your car will start; you have faith that it will, so you turn the ignition. In fact, you have so much faith that it will start that you made promises on the strength of this; if it doesn't start, you might be late to work, or to a meeting, or to pick your kids up. But you aren't worried; it will start. You have faith. That's why you got in the car and started it just in time, and didn't go out and test it two hours earlier so that you could walk there or call a taxi just in case.

But someday....someday, your car won't start. That might happen when YOU attempt to start it. In fact, you won't know that it will start until, voila', it starts. Then and only then does faith stop being faith and become something else; knowledge.

But I'll tell you what: when the word 'faith' is never, EVER used in a non-religious manner, and comes to mean something other than 'trust,' I'll concede the point. However, at the moment?

Faith = Trust, and for the one doing the trusting, it's exactly the same thing, whether the beliefs he places his trust in is in his version of God...or that your car will start. The only difference is in the quality of the evidence.


But tell me: If, for some reason, I knew that some kids had gotten into your garage last night and messed with your sparkplug wires, or pulled your ignition, so that I was aware that your trust that your car would start was very misplaced, do I then get to insist that your trust is actually 'faith,' because it's based on belief alone and not fact? Because, of course, at that point it would be.

Why is what I have 'faith' and not 'trust,' because YOU don't like the evidence for the beliefs I hold?

I've never been able to figure that one out.

I agree with a lot of the semantics about quite a lot of people using faith to mean trust, but trust is never based on belief alone - it is always backed by reason. (Or as close to fact as we can get).

If you ask someone "Why are you a theist?" and they say "I just have faith in theism" - if they mean trust, then you could further ask them "Why do you have faith in theism?" (and it'd be almost exactly the same question). Saying you trust in something is not any kind of end point to rationality.

I don't know if this helps explain what I'm getting at though.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 34 by dianaiad]

..., personally, think that if there isn't a God, then every society would be an 'atheistic' one...

If there is no god, how can one not believe in it? It's like saying you don't believe in Thisjehau. Can you not believe in Thisjehau if you don't believe it exists? Perhaps, but it would be illogical.

That is your definition: 'believing in no god.'

In a sense, yes. As it is for many.

I asked you about the evidence of a an atheistic society...your definition of atheistic. Which is, as you mention, a society without a belief in god.

Not once did I claim to know of you, so you can stop asking.

Why would a simple belief that there is no God be better than a belief IN God, absent anything else?

Why do you think it would?

...do you, or do you not, define 'faith' as 'belief without evidence' and confine it strictly to religious views...

Faith (as it relates to the religious) is, at the basic level, the belief in god and it's ability. If this means 'religion' or the like, so be it. As IMO on how it SHOULD be define because faith does NOT NEED to rely on experience, facts, data, etc. Basically, hope in the unknown (god).

...have you, or have you not, been very clear that even though the dictionary and the majority of English speakers disagree with you, that your stated definition is the one you will use, and the one you will argue with?

That's how I use it in this context, acknowledging it's not how most use it.

...I am noting the irony here of your hope...without any evidence whatsoever, objective OR subjective...that an atheistic society would be 'better' in any way than a theistic one.

In a perfect world, there would be no religion and no negative effects of it.

Oh, and 'lack of belief in deity' would only be 'better' in your own view; what would such a lack of belief do for anybody? Better hospitals? Better science? Better buildings? Better politics?

I would LOVE to think this would be true again, in a perfect world

...the only evidence we have than an atheistic society would be 'different' from a theistic one is that which shows that an atheistic society is a nastier place to be in; more dangerous, more polluting, far less free....yeah, not good.

I don't disagree.
You're spinning your wheels here so here's the deal:
In a perfect world, there would be no god, no need to believe in it and no one that would give a rat's rear about a god.
There would be no negative impacts of religion and all the positives religion gave (art, challenges to critical thinking, etc).
I would love to say that there's proof that religious practices are a waste. Fortunately, people are better than that and have risen above the shackles religion has placed on so many of them and become better in-spite of religion.
Is this reality? No, but neither is a perfect world.
I don't, and have never claimed an atheistic culture is better (or worse) then a religious one.
I don't, and have never claimed to KNOW of an atheistic culture.
I recognize the benefits that religion has provide, as well as the terrible things done in its name.
So, what have you learned here?
I have no:
proof of atheistic cultures
proof of any atheistic culture being better (or worse) than a religious culture
I would LOVE to be able to show a culture is better off without any god concept.
I would LOVE that to be the case
And lastly (for what, the 4th time now?) I never claimed an utopian atheistic society existed, or would be better (or worse) than its opposite.

Now then, if you want to twist those words into some weird "proof" for your POV, which I don't disagree with in this case in general, go for it.
I don't know how to make it any more clear than this.
Read what's there, not what you want to be there. This isn't the bible, after all (though I could write a much better, more accurate and entertaining story).

[dianaiad]

.

Oh, and 'lack of belief in deity' would only be 'better' in your own view; what would such a lack of belief do for anybody? Better hospitals? Better science? Better buildings? Better politics?

Hospitals, science, buildings, politics are a function of a society – not a religion or lack of religion. European and Asian nations that are minimally religious have all the above.

Yes they do...but 'minimally religious' is not 'atheist.' At most you could call them 'secular,' and to be very honest, the European nation hospitals tend to be handed down to society by religions, and the Asian hospitals...WHICH Asian nations are you talking about, btw, which you call 'minimally religious?' China? Oh, my....I do hope you aren't comparing Chinese medical care to that which you can find in nations that didn't have to deal with Mao.

I do notice, for instance, that nobody in the USA is going TO China for their advanced medical care.

"Handed down by religion"
We aren't in a position to evaluate where it came from, because the majority of humans have been religious.

We can use facts. All the early hospitals were religious. It's useless to speculate about whether, if there had been atheistic societies, there would have been medical and scientific advancements given us by them, because there haven't been any.

For instance, between about a thousand years ago and five hundred years ago you would be executed for not being Christian, in much of what is now western culture. Even if this were not the case, the overwhelming majority of the population were.

Is anyone surprised that atheists aren't from over five hundred years ago aren't as famed and widespread for their inventions and ideas?

That's atheists in theistic societies. Yes, this sort of thing happened. Er....you do realize that the only atheistic societies we actually know about, you know, those of the twentieth century, did the same sort of thing to theists?

Where is the all fired "Better" difference between the theocracy which punished people for not belonging to their religious beliefs, and, say...Mao and/or Stalin who murdered people for not agreeing with their beliefs about religion?

I don't see one. If an atheistic society would be so much better for humanity than a theistic one, then...er...why wasn't it?

For societies which are intrinsically atheist, in which there is no belief in a deity evident? We have absolutely no evidence at all that such a society would be better, worse, or any different from, a theistic one. None. Zip.

Agreed. Therefore any comments about an "Atheistic society" are hypothetical or irrational. Any finger-pointing at disreputable or disruptive societies in the past (or present) are meaningless.

.............and if there is no God, so that all societies are 'without God,' and only think they have one to worship, the problem is worse; in that case, all the evidence shows us that a purely atheistic society just ain't gonna happen. There's something about humans that seems to produce religion; it's a part of us.

Humans seem inclined to invent religions and gods to explain what they do not understand or to provide an external code of conduct to follow.

Many people seem unable to formulate their own morals and ethics based upon their society and their experience – but rely on religion to provide that guidance for them.

Others are confident that they are capable of learning from their society and their personal experience to formulate personal moral / ethical codes and abide by them (without threat of eternal punishment).

Seems to me, then, that God or not (and remember, I'm a bone deep theist, here) that an atheist society would be, if not impossible, then exactly like a theistic one, with all the same motives, problems, murderous or honorable intentions, political shenanigans, power grabbing or altruism that religious societies have.

If an "Atheistic society" would be "exactly like a theistic one" WHY bother with the baggage of theism?

Because people actually believe in a deity? Turn the question around: if a theist culture would be like an atheist one, why force people to give up their faith in deity? What makes you think everyone would?

The premise, here, seems to be that 'giving up the baggage of theism' is a good thing. I don't see why it would. Atheists have been, are, and can be just as nasty as any theist ever conceived. So....if it's a difference that makes no difference, why would atheism be 'better?' Especially since the only evidence we have in the matter is that it, well....isn't?

I understand what you're getting at, but here's a few points to consider:

Most major religions are expensive. Temples, prayer rooms, lots of time and effort. Sometimes even emotional stress stemming from the religion.
This might not directly address theism, but I think most people from many religious cultures (there are some cultures like judaism where there are a surprisingly high number of atheists) would stop funding these things if they discovered that their beliefs were wrong.

If it is the case that atheism is more reasonable, wouldn't you want people to stop being theists?

If they chose to be. Mind you, since I don't happen to think that atheism is more reasonable than my own beliefs, the question is moot. I certainly believe you have the right to try to talk other people into agreeing with you.

The problem I have with the conversation we are having right now is this really odd idea that, even though we have absolutely no evidence that an atheistic society would be 'better' in any way than a theistic one, folks here are still arguing that it would be.

Isn't that exactly the sort of thing that frustrates atheists when they accuse theists of being stupid for believing in God, with no evidence? I mean, the irony of this is so thick I could put it on toast and eat it for breakfast.

OK, the problem is, 'faith' is synonymous with 'trust,' and is used frequently in non-religious areas. "Full faith and trust' is a legal term we are all familiar with; being a 'faithful' spouse. "I have faith in you." "Don't you have any faith in your own abilities?" Like that.

So 'faith' is NOT purely religious, nor does the meaning change when it is applied to religious things; it still means 'trust,' and has absolutely NOTHING to do with the quality of the evidence that inspires that trust.

I gave a few examples of this; the cop who put his faith in a freeway...a faith that, please pardon me, had a lot more evidence going for it than yours in the idea that your car will start everytime you hit the ignition switch. He was wrong; that freeway fell down.

Your car will, at some point, fail to start for someone when the ignition switch is turned. That WILL happen. You have faith that your spouse and children love you, and that faith is based on their actions, but...are you sure that their actions are based entirely on love? Now your faith in them may be, and I hope that it is, solidly based. However, some people have faith in the love of their spouses, and get severely disappointed. Happens all the time.

"Faith" + "Trust." Simple as that; you trust that what you believe to be true is true enough to behave as if it's true. You trust that your car will start; you have faith that it will, so you turn the ignition. In fact, you have so much faith that it will start that you made promises on the strength of this; if it doesn't start, you might be late to work, or to a meeting, or to pick your kids up. But you aren't worried; it will start. You have faith. That's why you got in the car and started it just in time, and didn't go out and test it two hours earlier so that you could walk there or call a taxi just in case.

But someday....someday, your car won't start. That might happen when YOU attempt to start it. In fact, you won't know that it will start until, voila', it starts. Then and only then does faith stop being faith and become something else; knowledge.

But I'll tell you what: when the word 'faith' is never, EVER used in a non-religious manner, and comes to mean something other than 'trust,' I'll concede the point. However, at the moment?

Faith = Trust, and for the one doing the trusting, it's exactly the same thing, whether the beliefs he places his trust in is in his version of God...or that your car will start. The only difference is in the quality of the evidence.


But tell me: If, for some reason, I knew that some kids had gotten into your garage last night and messed with your sparkplug wires, or pulled your ignition, so that I was aware that your trust that your car would start was very misplaced, do I then get to insist that your trust is actually 'faith,' because it's based on belief alone and not fact? Because, of course, at that point it would be.

Why is what I have 'faith' and not 'trust,' because YOU don't like the evidence for the beliefs I hold?

I've never been able to figure that one out.

I agree with a lot of the semantics about quite a lot of people using faith to mean trust, but trust is never based on belief alone - it is always backed by reason. (Or as close to fact as we can get).

And neither is religious belief. It's always based upon something. Faith is what one does about belief. Belief is ALWAYS based on something. Some evidence; it may not be evidence that you like, or that anybody else likes, but it's always something. That 'something' may not make logical sense to someone trained in it, but it's still something.

If you ask someone "Why are you a theist?" and they say "I just have faith in theism" - if they mean trust, then you could further ask them "Why do you have faith in theism?" (and it'd be almost exactly the same question). Saying you trust in something is not any kind of end point to rationality.

I don't know if this helps explain what I'm getting at though.

Yes, I've heard the 'I just believe" comment, too....but it doesn't matter. If you drill it down, you will always get a reason why "I just believe." There's always a 'because."