Some Opium For the Masses

[jordan179]

I happen to be an atheist, in that I believe in no gods.  I am also an agnostic, in that I do not acknowledge proofs of any gods, since no valid proofs have been offered.
Having said that, hating "religion" lock, stock and barrel is the equivalent of hating humanity.

Why is that?  Because every effective Human culture in history which was not also

Comments

[asher63]

Excellent points.

[gothelittle]

We are actually Christian on the fundamental level, rather than atheist. Only in a religion in which it is recognized that religious faith and practice cannot be forced can a people be comfortable with writing a Constitution that forbids the forcing of religious faith and practice.

Throughout history, any effort to force Christianity through politics has been extra-Biblical and often opposed by the majority of the Christian church of the time. Every time you clear back to fundamentals, you wind up in the same place. This is unlike Islam (for instance), which has as its *fundamentals* a strong political component which requires religious practice, if not faith.

We can see this in modern U.S. history, in which the increase in atheistic decisions made by the government is naturally resulting in a narrowing of religious (and non-religious) freedoms.

That said, I like your end conclusion about the use of opiates to treat a patient with certain medical conditions. :)

[jordan179]

Well, yes. America is culturally Christian. So am I mostly, though I was raised Jewish.

America has mostly incorporated the better aspects of Christianity and Judaism into her culture, and shed the worse ones. Europe threw the baby out with the bathwater when she decided on democratic socialism; she lacks the moral self-confidence to condemn even the most obvious acts of aggression and criminality, and now her ordinary people are suffering for it.

[gothelittle]

That was basically my point

non-sectarian

[ilion7]

"We are actually Christian on the fundamental level, rather than atheist."

Exactly. The US Constitution *assumes* Christianity, but *mandates* non-sectarianism. This is a very different thing from atheism.

[beesandbrews]

Faith tends to be fluid over the course of a lifetime, ebbing and flowing depending on one's reaction to life. And there has always been atheists and agnostics. Sometimes a person can be all three over the course of their lifetime.

I think faith is one of the underpinnings of a healthy society. Without it, people tend towards cynism and cruelty. And considering that humans are a hard species anyway, we need an external moral compass to rein in our worse tendencies.

I think that's why people bend to the will of charismatic and ruthless leaders in the absence of other options.

[btripp]

I have always wanted to found a new "church" that would have all the bells & whistles (music, architecture, incense, gravitas, etc.) of the religious churches, but wouldn't be based on fabrications. I figured a Solar/Earth/Stellar/Spirit axis would be a good basis. Frankly, I have always been attracted to the outlines of the Fosterite church from Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land (and have wondered why Tim Zell chose to manifest the Church of All Worlds from that book instead) ... you can drink - as long as it's the Church's brands, you can gamble - as long as it's in the Church's casinos, you can go a-whoring - as long at it's in the Church's brothels ... and have SA-like shock troops to put down any uppity opposition.

[benschachar_77]

"Even if religious belief is objectively wrong..."
Nothing funnier than a pro-evolution atheist who believes the usual tripe about homosexuality and transsexuality being perfectly normal and natural accusing others of being objectively wrong.

[jordan179]

Homosexuality is abnormal -- the majority of any human population is heterosexual. Transsexuality is extremely abnormal -- less than 1% of the population is even slightly transsexual. Your problem is that you are confusing "abnormal" with "insane" and "morally wrong."

As for "natural" -- well, yes. It occurs in nature, both in humans and other animals. "Natural" doesn't mean "normal" -- variations exist in nature.

I know the exact likely evolutionary reasons why homosexuality is not more vigorously selected against. I've probably explained them before as well. Your problem is that you're expecting "normal," "natural" and "moral" to correspond perfectly.

abnormal and/or insane == immoral ?

[ilion7]

"Your problem is that you are confusing "abnormal" with "insane" and "morally wrong.""

With respect to your accusation that he is equating *mere* abnormality with immorality, you are being unfair, and you know it.

At the same time, some abnormalities are not *mere*, and the promotion of some abnormalities *is* immoral.

And, while being insane is immoral only when chosen, to promote insanity is *always* immoral.

Re: abnormal and/or insane == immoral ?

[jordan179]

My original response was to the implied claim that homosexuality was objectively not "normal" and "natural," to which I pointed out that it is in fact "abnormal" (the majority of Humans are heterosexual) and "natural" (it occurs naturally in many animals, including Humans). You have not shown that homosexuality is insane, nor immoral.

And no, I don't take Bronze to Iron Age mythological compilations as evidence in this regard.