Seth wrote:JWG wrote:Seth-
Atheism, again, is simply the lack of belief in a deity/deities.
That's the dictionary definition, but it's not necessarily how atheism is practiced by atheists in the real world.
It's all semantics anyhow. If someone doesn't accept the existence of deities they are atheist by definition. If they do believe in such, they are theists. How is atheism "practiced" outside of this lack of belief in deities? That's all it describes about the individual's personality and make-up, nothing more or less. If someone views things differently as a *result* of this particular aspect (atheism), it is not "practicing" atheism.
For example: If I now do not view homosexuality as immoral or a sin and thus decide to support LBGT rights, it doesn't imply that I am a practicing atheist, but a LBGT supporter.
Seth wrote:JWG wrote: This does not mean that morals are thrown to the way-side, or lack of morals can be blamed on one not believing in said deities.
Of course it doesn't mean that they "are," merely that religion provides a well-tested, detailed, effective and historically useful method of inculcating and supporting moral practice in large populations.
It is certainly a good way of spreading ideology and ensuring it is sustained via fear of punishment (physical and metaphysical; Inquisition, shunning, sin, and ticket to Hell, etc) to a mass population. Although some of the morals and subsequent social cohesion (until of course two religion's tales are different, and war ensues) is seen from this, I personally do not find it necessary and outright wrong to do so in such a manner. It is simply narrow-minded to think that social cohesion cannot be accomplished with as much success without theistic religion, dogma, and the worst of the three; fear.
Seth wrote:JWG wrote:
Theistic Religion is in fact very effective in implementing morals in society, but it often does so in a manner that also doesn't promote critical thinking or questioning, not to mention the dogmatic beliefs in said deities, that often more than not are going to "punish" the individual in some way for not following the morals funneled via that theistic religion's philosophy and practices.
Could it be that "critical thinking" is not necessarily all it's cracked up to be, from the societal order perspective?
Certainly the Democrats proved this week that critical thinking is not a necessary component of lawmaking. Nancy Pelosi insisted, in fact, that the lumpen proletariat simply shut the fuck up and not bother Congress with their critically-thought-out objections to the health care bill until after the non-thinking Democrats and Progressives rammed through a law they didn't even bother to read.
Socialism and Progressivism are all about suppressing critical thinking in the proletariat. Progressivism proceeds from the fundamental assumption that the proles are simply too stupid to be involved in government.
So, the question becomes, "what is the social utility of critical thinking," and it's corollary question "is a society filled with critical thinkers easier or harder for the government to control and keep satisfied?"
And then there's the fact that some of the greatest critical thinkers of history were devoutly religious, which impeaches somewhat the presumption you state that people of faith cannot think critically.
Just because a government decides to silence their public does not justify an argument against the positive effects of critical thinking. In fact, this is a good example religion. The religion thinks for the believer, and there is no room for question or individual assessment, much like the effectiveness of our opinion in how our society evolves. Your point? Should we all just give up on thinking critically and for ourselves?
Seth wrote:JWG wrote:This is fear and non-thinking that is keeping the individuals within a moral system and social cohesion.
True enough. So what? Is social cohesion and moral suasion not a valid objective of society?
Yes, indeed it is a valid objective of society to have cohesion and morals that promote such. Where we seem to differ is our morals and optimism. To me, a society of fearful and non-thinking individuals is more of a "herd", kept dumb and afraid and dependent, slaves. An individual who is open to freely express themselves and add to society through his own intellect and genius (this requires thinking!) is a true citizen and contributor to the advancement of society. Nothing good came from fear and suppression of free thought, which most of the time is initially viewed as heretical, mad, and against the current morals or God-help-us, the religious dogma of the time!
Seth wrote:JWG wrote:The fact that you seem to be saying religion (assuming theistic) is the BEST way to promote morals and cohesion amongst society is to me an insult to the intellectual capability and ability for human's to operate in a functional way without such.
If I saw more evidence that atheistic morality was socially beneficial I might agree with you. But most of the evidence that I see about atheistic morality demonstrates that it's a very, very bad idea to found a system of social order upon atheistic notions. Josef Stalin alone is adequate proof of the dangers of religion-free society.
There is no such thing as "atheistic morality." Atheism is again, simply the lack of belief in deities! What you seem to be saying is that without a belief in deities, or pre-packaged morality and ideology from a religion, one simply cannot come up with his own effective one. This doesn't just go for theism, but secular ideology as well. Whether a priest or a political leader is the one selling the ideology or belief, one is ultimately responsible for their own actions. This requires, oh-no, critical thinking! There have been many horrendous outcomes from religions and secular ideologies, yes including Stalin. You can't possibly tell me you can't recall a time when religious dogma and ideologies haven't caused equal or greater negative events.
Seth wrote:JWG wrote:Many of the practices taught in various religions are indeed healthy and effective, but these can be taught in a way that does not include stories of God(s) or metaphysical punishments for swaying from the morals or rewards for being a good boy and girl.
True enough, but are they? I say they aren't. I say that when religious education is suppressed, the result is an acute lack of moral education, and worse, political indoctrination masquerading as moral teaching.
Religious education and moral education do not have to be intertwined. Both a lack of moral integrity and falling victim to political indoctrination are both a result of a lack of the ability to think for ones self both critically and logically, not the introduction of fear and dogma, the disease hidden amongst both religion and dogmatic ideologies.
Sincerely,
JWG
by 
Visit 
