A Truly Atheist Society

I just had this discussion with a student in mainland China, concerning the nature of religion:



Emmanuel Kant, philosopher, said that the heart of morality and
ethics is that other people always be an end in themselves, rather
than a means to an end


I think perhaps someone like Saddam Hussein did not care for the
suffering or poverty of his people, ... they were a means to an end, his
ends...

Whereas, I imagine that someone like Gandhi truly cared about his
people, and placed their needs before his own needs...


Question:
Why do some people are good and why some are evil? what
causes this? enviranment or something else?


It is very sad to see people wearing a wrist watch which costs
$70,000 for example, when they could wear a nice $200 watch, and
use that money to help someone less fortunate in some way,... either
with education, or medical assistance...


I wrote an essay "Good, Evil and Ideas which Transform" which I put at the religion text forum



http://online-literature.com/forums/...ead.php?t=3969


Question:
Do you think that religion can help purify people's mind
or do you think religion will narrow one's mind



I think that religion is not something from outside... like the opium
which Marx described (religion as the opiate of the people)... instead...
I see religion as a force within all of us. That force is always seeking expression (just like sex, hunger... etc). I do not think we can escape that religious force in us.... it will come out in some form, even for atheist, it comes out as worship of state, worship of dictator....
or it comes out as worship of ideas, or worship of beauty/art....
this is how I see religion... an energy from within, looking for some
empty vessel or form to fill....

For example... the Soviet Union represents a 70 year experiment
in raising several generations to be free of religion... yet, when Soviet
Union crumbled, people came out thirst for many different religions
Judaism, Hinduism (Hare Krishna)... Russian Orthodoxy.... Jehovah's
Witness

One Hare krishna temple had SO MANY russian immigrants that they
had to start a class on Bhagavad-Gita in RUSSIAN
with my own eyes, I saw people come out of soviet union thirsting for
various religions, and religous freedom

I learned to speak Russian, and spent much time in usa with Russians



Question:
What about science? is science conflicting religion



Science can be pursued with a religious fervor or devotion.... science
becomes a religion....
pursuit of truth, pursuit of knowledge... these are like a religion
all pursuit of human improvement, perfection, discipline has a
religious element to it...

even military.... saluting the flag,... military and political heros are
spoken of like religious saints
Mao was spoken of like some wonderous saint, some superperson, a
deliverer, a savior of his people...

Sandberg describes Lincoln like some sort of saint.
People look at Gandhi like a saint,... even Einstein wrote a letter in
tribute to Gandhi, speaking of him like a saint



Question: Then how do you define religion? faith?



The thrill of patriotism, of someone in USA, who salutes the flag, sings
the Star Spangled Banner.... speaks of Liberty, Justice, the Pursuit of
Happiness...

when people sacrifice themselves for anything,.... that is a religious
action... there are Chess enthusiasts who live their whole lives in
borderline poverty, so they my devote all their energies to the game of
Chess...


we must look beyond exterior labels and stereotypes
when the Chinese government invented an anonymous peasant who
was then given a name, described as a saint, a perfect party member,
thinking only of their society, of others....

and posters were made of this person, and pamplets were written...
a hero like Superman or Batman or Spiderman.... that is a religion...
or rather, it taps into the religious energy which is constantly flowing
out of every person seeking a path for expression


I saw an entire documentary,... about China in the 1950s or 60s.... and
they showed the posters, and interviewed young students....


in USA, forest fires were a big problem in 1910,... so they invented a
character, called Smokey the Bear, who was a fire marshall... and
posters of Smokey advised people about fire safety with campfires
Such a mythical figure becomes an icon to focus devotion, devotion to some cause or pursuit.



There really was a campaign about some communist peasant saint....
who was the ideal party member, idea citizen


look at how we worship the image, persona of Einstein.... the accent,
the wild hair,... the stereotype of the absent-minded scientist,... such
becomes our stereotype of what wisdom is

so we have a Yoda character in Starwars who is modeled somewhat
after Einstein...

and in other movies,... like A.I. by Spielberg, a futuristic move about
robots... why, there is an Einstein character called, "Dr. Know" (who
knows everything)...

we come to worship such icons... we have reverence for them, AND
we have FAITH in them,... faith that there can exist someone so wise,
or good, or self-sacrificing



Question: so you think that people pursuing scientifical truth is
something like religion



I think that when you remove traditional religion, then there is a void,
a vacuum, an emptyness, and something immediatly rushes in to fill
that emptiness...

and IF I AM WRONG, then there should have been some society
somewhere in history who was simply without any religion, because it
never occured to them, and they were isolated....

but we NEVER find such to be the case... even the most isolated
people, like the Australian aborigine, have some kind of religion, a
concept of something sacred/holy... and a concept of something
taboo/forbidden

people in history have tried to construct a perpetual motion machine,
a machine which would run forever, with no additional outside power
or fuel... but it is IMPOSSIBLE, based on nature of energy, motion,
thermodynamics...

so, similary, communist governments tried to have a society with no
religion,... but it is impossible, cannot be done....

all attempts to eliminate the expression of religious nature fail...
even an atheist philosopher, like Sartre or Heidegger, have a concept
of the NUMINOUS, the awesome...

they do not worship a god, but there is something that they worship or
revere....

yes, obviously, traditional things like christianity, islam, judaism,
buddhism, hinduism.... are traditional classic religions...

but patriotism is also a religious expression....
even the most atheist communist nation will play a very inspiring

national anthem, and have a flag, and write inspiring words, and stand
and salute in some fashion.... is this not an expression of religious
fervor or devotion...

show me a nation of people which has no flag, no anthem, no patriotic
poem or lyrics,.... and then I may begin to believe that there is a
nation, a people, free of religion


for me, the very fact that we can never exist as a nation without a
single individual as president, prime minister, king, czar, emperor,
dictator... (whatever he or she is called)... that fact alone is for me an
expression of the inescapable nature...


inescapable nature of man's religious side...


we could have a society where there is no leader personality... where
EVERYONE spends a few hours per day studying issues and voting
electronically, with computers, internet....

a pure democracy is possible with our technology...
but our PSYCHOLOGY is not suited to such pure, leaderless society...
where the masses themselves govern....
it is possible with technology to have trials which have no judge, and
only jury... but you see we must have a judge personality, wearing
black robes,... and we must all stand when the judge enters, and we
must have rituals of swearing oath, or swearing allegiance... these are
all religious actions,,.... based upon superstition...


you see... let us pretend that all of the government officials could see
these words which I now write.... and let us pretend I was in china....
well... they would have no choice but to come a imprision or execute
me... because my words and ideas are dangerous....


my words are not dangerous to a society... but my words are
dangerous to all the special interest groups in a government or regime
who will lose privilige and money and power, if my words were to be
put into practice...


so... as long as there is a government with interest groups or persons
in positions of power or privilige... why, the do so at the expence of
the society as a whole... they exploit and enslave the masses in order
to support the elite minority...

why else would North Korea declare their dead military revolutionary
leader as PERPETUAL LEADER, if it is not a religious action...



show me a society where everyone is truly equal, where there are no
leaders or officials, where no one stand or bows or salutes before
anything,.... where even the dead are disposed of without ceremony...


and then i will say that such a society has no religion... no religious
expression of this energy which I call religious spiritual energy

Nationalism is a religion like any other. For the worship of one's country, which can give and take everything you have at a whim, is tantamount to the worship of a vengeful yet also benevolent God.

You seek no gods, no masters; you shall not find it anytime soon. Much of mankind fears death too much to give up their gods. To give up their religion. To give in to reality without leaders, where equality is the only law and the individual matters here and now, not in the future when they're dead.

Such is utopia, but still something I'm willing to aspire to. Though I don't care if its theistic or not, I need no gods and if someone else does, all the better for the future of true equality in belief throughout the world.

Interesting essay though..

Sitaram,

Pascal Boyer wrote a book called Religion Explained which you might find interesting. Although it is sitting on my bookshelf, I have yet to read it. But from what I have heard, it proposes that some people have a religion gene that makes them more susceptible to religious persuasion. I don't think that nature wins the nature/nurture debate myself, so am often sceptical of sociobiological / neo-Darwinist arguments, but you might still find the work stimulating.

AP

Thanks for the recommendation, I will take a look. I did see some article in a magazine about a "religious" gene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sitaram

I think that religion is not something from outside... like the opium
which Marx described (religion as the opiate of the people)... instead...
I see religion as a force within all of us. That force is always seeking expression (just like sex, hunger... etc). I do not think we can escape that religious force in us.... it will come out in some form, even for atheist, it comes out as worship of state, worship of dictator....
or it comes out as worship of ideas, or worship of beauty/art....
this is how I see religion... an energy from within, looking for some
empty vessel or form to fill....

---

I think religion is something from outside. if not, why do religionists preach?
Our inner forces are not all of religion. There are faith, love, etc. We cannot equate the inner force with religion. We cannot equate worship of ideas, worship of beauty/art... with religion. We cannot be Penreligionistic.

I revere religion. There are a lot of deep thoughts in Buddhism, Christianity, Islam... I often read some religionary books. I just express my view and think that this forum is for discussion. I hope I haven't offended some people.

There have been several atheist societies or societies run along atheist lines. All have been extremely nasty. The maddest Mohammedan looks like a decent person compared to the atheist politicos of these societies,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

There have been several atheist societies or societies run along atheist lines. All have been extremely nasty. The maddest Mohammedan looks like a decent person compared to the atheist politicos of these societies,

---

There many modern secular countries that are democratic and not particularly nasty at all. Any ideology that becomes militaristic will result in nastiness, I'm afraid.

Atheist and secular are not synonomous terms. Clearly there are some decent secular societies as well as some rather dark secular states. I wasn't referring to places like that at all. I was referring to the atheist states. The most important example today being China which has slaughtered more of its own people in the half century under atheism than it managed in all of the rest of its long history under various dynasties and squabbling warlords.. This is a separate issue from militarism.

The point I'm trying to get at is that there is nothing inherent in atheism (or Islam, for that matter) that lends itself to violence. Members of the Council for Secular Humanism, for example, are not known for their kill-crazy rampages.

A better way of putting it might be that any attempt on the part of the state to legislate what its citizens believe will invariably result in nastiness.

i can buy a watch for 2 dollars and be just as happy, though i dont wear a watch at all. anyway, religion severely narrows the mind, im afraid. any ideology narrows the mind, especially strict adherence to one. religion is an organized form of brainwashing. now, don't get me wrong, that is not a bad thing. but religion implies strict adherence to a frame of ideas--note that a frame= four walls and no way ou of them. i think religion is a bittersweet institution--it can both prevent "evil" and spawn it. but a society of atheists would lack the holy mumbo jumbo and cultural aspects that religion contributes. i myself am a spiritualist--im no atheist but i would never enter any dogmatic belief or proclaim a belief in "god."

Very well written, I appreciate what you wrote. I'm pro-relgion. I'm pro- expression. Yes, expression, is an unescapable humanistic charachteristc. It is important to know that. Our minds are imbedded with wishful and abstact thoughts. I'll do my best to answer in full
1) People are bad because of ignorance of natural law. People are good because they realize that they are infinitely removed from the truth. They accept that they are intinsic idiots; but still value themselves and others as beings worthy to be cared for.
2) Religion is universal. Catholics call it natural law. Although there are some "crazy" overzealous followers of this sect, doesn't mean it is a crazy sect. People are crazy, and that's where it ends. Science does not conflict with religion because both are after the same thing. Both try and measure truth using simplified methods.
3) I define religion as a organized way to attain stronger faith. I define faith as realization of one's own imperfections and willingness to accept others as imperfect as they are. (read between the lines)
-Understand reader; the poverty of language, the constant misinterpretions are soooo recurring. Mostly because people don't even understand themselves entirely. We communicate but ultimately we are not communicating. We are making sounds, and pretending to have arrived at the truth, so we believe that we are above it. The truth is we are slaves to it, and "slave" doesn't have to connotate "evil." Since It is the most fundamental fact. Since the world is so absurd I think we as humans have to ask ourselves: what is the best way to make me feel comfortable with who I am and others are? Well, if it is true we are merely making noises when we communicate, the best noises for me personally, are those of worship and revelrie, they yield the most desired feelings. It just so happens that patience to understand another person (poverty of language), is the determing factor to understanding oneself.
-But I'm afraid these words type will not hit the mark I intend in every case (for every reader). But hopefully it can lead to the right questions. The right questions are just as important as the right answers

As a Muslim i really don't think my religion narrows my mind. It's depend to person's point of view to religion. Some wrong interpretations of İslam narrows the mind though. But, i talk for my religion, it's the most universal understanding of universe and man.

PierreGringoire,

If people are evil because they are ignorant of natural law, does this mean evil-doers are unnatural? that they do not obey the law of nature (whatever that may be)? All across the living world of animate nature, we see acts that are often described as evil. So we may have good reason to suspect that either evil is natural, or that evil is merely a term we apply to things or acts we detest.

Your analysis of the similarities between science and religion is rather too simplified. The big difference, is that science seeks to uncover the truth through specific evidence-based research using methodology that can be replicated elsewhere. Religion cannot possibly provide the assurances that science can. If it could, there would be no point in faith. People may point to the theoretical nature of certain scientific theories, as if they are on a par with the theoretical nature of religion. However, theories like evolution have so much evidence behind them, that it would be sheer ignorance or stupidity to treat the theory in the same way that you might treat a variety of religious theories, such as reincarnation, virgin births, resurrection etc.

Unfortunately, some people assume that communist societies are atheist societies. Communism operates in a very similar way to religion. There are the all-powerful figure-heads, whose very statements or actions can mean life or death, to thousands maybe millions of people; there are the official creeds which determine who is and who is not a heretic; there are the hierarchies of priesthood, the people who peddle and meddle with the official truth; there are icons of the leader, the belief system, the hierarchy; there is the belief system itself. No truly atheist state would bother with these religious trappings, that we atheists have fought against for hundreds of years.

Atiguhya padma,
evil is subjective.

Religion and science are both after the same thing. Science proves something but it is only proven by human scales. Just because we humans measured something using methods of science, doesn't prove that the thing being measured is accurate. What if the scale is false? If the scale isn't perfect, I'd say it is rather inaccurate. The thing the scale measures; as it is observed when one makes a hypothesis about it; What makes it worthy to be called a "human achievement"? What if the thing structured by the scientific method isn't that "great," we just "make it great" in our minds.

Just as it is with relegion or natural law, or even better__The pondering of the divine. You are to argue that there is no divine? I say there is. There is natural truth and it is flexible, but it does have limits; it is weighed; even if it can only be measured by God.

I (it really continues to be about me) believe in a personal God who takes more interest in me then I deserve and often more then I want when His ways definitely are not in sync with my ways. Religion, atheism, science are just labels I belive (my you it's just me and I'm no one special) men (and women) use to avoid confronting God in a personal way.

God demands more then a basic yes I believe in you God. If the long suffering wife got told by a thousand times I belive in her and still continue to ignore the dishes there would be a bit more change in the standard of living in the very near future.

Bottom line as the years have gone by the less interest I have in religion (though it is a joy to play with Jehovah's Witness when they wake me up (I'm second shift). To quote My Fair Lady---"Words Words Words" (and Liza was not praising Prof Higgins.

Sitaram,
just a small remark before I readily acknowledge your in depth analysis-
buying a 200$-dollar watch-well I consider it rather misanthropic too-just a little twist in the calculations...the essence is the same though. Another elaboration-you cannot declare officiallly the imperative nature of the humanistic standpoint...or force the notion of evilness on a person devoid of this sensitivity to human suffering...the effect will be the same as the capital punishment-blaming, you will doubtlessly leave the perpetrator innocent in his view,the victim,which makes him invulnerable to any accusations.......Avoiding examples...my generalization is the following:
THe natural way excludes any pointing...we cannot hope that wickedness is realized without facing it...just as truth is only reached- never...linguistically imposed...
Here is the religion distortion- that communication-/which I believe is religion in its unmodified form/-is pointing...its premises -communication between you and the venerable priesthood/be it in the incarnation of some "artistic" posters of heroes or the more historically-authoritative one of the state.../ in all the cases communication is assumed to be pointing...Here is where I see the viciousness...you can easily control someone who neglects communication with his self -thus the manifestation of divinity-to direct it outwards as some of you mentioned...to believe that the flowing of knowledge is bestowed on someone...thus we can explain...why so many forms of religion as you carefully ennumerated...indeed people seek the truth of their existence -but how do they seek it-

Calmly sitting with the hands modestly clasped all in humble readiness to LISTEN - what a pious view...sitting and watching...

certainly now is more easy for me to explain to myself some decadent processes in the world from a long time ago and why this despair in man who cannot find meaning in his life

we live in a religious world...

I believe that religion is necessary, because not all people are the same. Some people need something to help them feel stronger and have courage to deal with the problems they face. They need something to organize their thoughts about things they don't understand. They need answers, for they couldn't handle not knowing what will happen after they die, or knowing that maybe evil people will never have the punishment they deserve. Other people find these answers in other things, like science, philosophy, arts. I am not religious for I find more comfort in philosophy and psychology, but I do think that the world would be worse if we had no religions at all. Of course, there are fanatics, but they are not the majority. Fanatics are, in my opinion, the dark side of religions.
Another thing that people should be careful about is when religion is used to disguise the real reasons for wars (which are always power and money) and prejudice. They may use religious arguments to convince the honest, ordinary people, to support a war. And there is the money issue, of course. There have been one too many religious leaders (specially christian ministers, where I come from) who have become rich with the money from hard working churchgoers.

You may be right in some ways if not all regarding the need of a religion, and from some points of views religions create disputes, conflicts and frictions and in some cases it creates harmony, coherence and a sense of community and belongingness.

It us very hard to be judgemental of this fact.

I grew in an environment wherein religions taught me to be tolerant and maintain equanimity and equidistant with all as if all are equal and at the same time I was taught advsersity, enmity and the like.

Religious leaders at times have been aggressors, despots, fanatics, fundamentalists. Some schools of religious thoughts indoctrinate the vulnerable people.

Religiousness has both attributes and therefore I can not judge it is to be religious or not.

You've simply given the name 'religion' to the human desire to belong. They are not the same thing. I might as well say the need to eat is religious, therefor all people are religious.
We're pack animals with an inbuilt instinct to belong to a group. The sophistication of out minds and our societies allows this to be expressed in a multitude of ways. Religion is one of them, and nationalism is one of them, that doesn't make nationalism religion any more than it makes religion nationalism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam?

You've simply given the name 'religion' to the human desire to belong. They are not the same thing. I might as well say the need to eat is religious, therefor all people are religious.
We're pack animals with an inbuilt instinct to belong to a group. The sophistication of out minds and our societies allows this to be expressed in a multitude of ways. Religion is one of them, and nationalism is one of them, that doesn't make nationalism religion any more than it makes religion nationalism.

---

This is what I believe in. We are natural beings and live in a pack the way hosts of animals live in nature and we evolved differently, mutatively to be distinct from animals and in reality we are simply animals under the skin.

Somehow I imagine a atheistic society being equally fanatical as a religious one.