DiscussMormonism.com

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:44 pm

I think belief in a God is innate in humans, because humans are inherently irrational. There will always be people who believe irrational things, and some of those irrational things are harmless or perhaps even beneficial to society.

So I disagree with the idea that religion needs to vanish. I think certain religious behaviors need to vanish. Suicide bombing. Genital mutilation. Child marriages. Theocratic rule of law.

The goal needs to be to tame religions, not abolish them. To coexist. But that does not, as Dan Peterson wants, mean treating religions with kid gloves. Religions must continue to be mocked, scrutinized, held to account when they deserve it.

I don’t know whether religion is innate, but I’m pretty convinced that patternicity and intentionality are. And that is a combination that makes some kind of a supernatural Supreme being a consequence of thought processes that are completely rational in other contexts. So it may not be helpful to try and label people or even thought processes as rational or irrational. It all depends on the context.

More and more, I’ve come to believe that mockery is a counterproductive tool for anything other than dehumanization and divisiveness. Otherwise, my focus, like yours, is on actions and consequences rather than belief.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:10 pm

You haven't shown that atheists are underrepresented among gang members

That is impossible to prove. The overwhelming majority of gang members come from extremely poor and superstitious communities. All we can say is that gang members frequently use religion to feel protected.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:10 pm

that atheist gang members are less violent than believing gang members.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:04 pm

You have to make a case that atheists avoid military service because it's dangerous, as opposed to numerous other factors that could correlate with military service. You haven't come close.

How would an atheist gang member feel protected during a gun fight? "Of the nations with the lowest homicide rates, nearly all are very secular, with seven ranking among the least theistic nations, such as Sweden, Japan, Norway and the Netherlands."
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html

Sweden, Japan, Norway and the Netherlands are safer than religious cities like Provo, Utah. It is probably not a coincidence that Rockingham County, NH is safer than Provo, Utah. So I would think it is likely that atheists tend to avoid getting into a dangerous situation.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:10 pm

Again, No True Atheist. Given that most of the world is religious, one can argue that religion is implicated in the rise of Hitchens, Dawkins, or any atheist or leader. By your standard, every bad act by an atheist can be traced back to some religious antecedent.

I think you are misunderstanding the point here. Religion made rise of Stalin possible. It is like arguing that the NRA can be blamed for the increase in suicide and murder rates.

"However, disbelievers are less inclined than believers to endorse moral values that serve group cohesion, such as having respect for authorities, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity... It is possible that the negative stereotype of atheists as immoral may stem in part from the fact that they are less inclined than religious people to view respect for authority, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity as relevant for morality, and they are more likely to make moral judgments about harm on a consequentialist, case by case basis"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 143306.htm

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 8:44 pm

I think belief in a God is innate in humans, because humans are inherently irrational. There will always be people who believe irrational things, and some of those irrational things are harmless or perhaps even beneficial to society.

So I disagree with the idea that religion needs to vanish. I think certain religious behaviors need to vanish. Suicide bombing. Genital mutilation. Child marriages. Theocratic rule of law.

A lot of religious people in the US are against stem cell research. Atheists are overrepresented in the scientific community.

And who wants the second coming to happen?

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:01 pm

More and more, I’ve come to believe that mockery is a counterproductive tool for anything other than dehumanization and divisiveness.

Like any tool, it can be used incorrectly. But there are countless instances throughout history where satire has educated people faster and more effectively than any other method could have. Especially in cinema, with films like The Great Dictator and Dr. Strangelove.

I don't think South Park and the Book of Mormon musical were up to the effectiveness of those great works, but I think they did more good than harm.

If people are already past a certain point, mockery may pull them out further. If they’re not quite there yet, though, it may push them back in.

And I suspect that the dividing line for that is already well outside the line of being out. I’ve never been much attracted to Mormonism but mocking it makes me more sympathetic to it, not less.

The problem with mockery is that it has the obvious ulterior motive of amusing the mocker. So it’s easy to discount a mocking message.

It definitely shouldn’t be necessary or sufficient to bring someone out, no one should make a decision to leave the church based on a single message. I doubt even something like CES letter has, all by itself, removed someone from the church. Rather, it’s a starting point to do more research, follow footnotes, talk to friends and family, etc.

I suppose it could cause someone to dig in, but cognitive dissonance has a way of eating into those entrenched positions over time.

The only person allowed to be his real self in Mormonism was Joseph Smith

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:32 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:01 pm

More and more, I’ve come to believe that mockery is a counterproductive tool for anything other than dehumanization and divisiveness.

Like any tool, it can be used incorrectly. But there are countless instances throughout history where satire has educated people faster and more effectively than any other method could have. Especially in cinema, with films like The Great Dictator and Dr. Strangelove.

I don't think South Park and the Book of Mormon musical were up to the effectiveness of those great works, but I think they did more good than harm.

Socrates by todays standards would be considered a troll for his methods. And he used plenty of mockery.

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:41 pm

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:32 pm

Like any tool, it can be used incorrectly. But there are countless instances throughout history where satire has educated people faster and more effectively than any other method could have. Especially in cinema, with films like The Great Dictator and Dr. Strangelove.

I don't think South Park and the Book of Mormon musical were up to the effectiveness of those great works, but I think they did more good than harm.

Socrates by todays standards would be considered a troll for his methods. And he used plenty of mockery.

Good point.

doubtingthomas wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:12 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:10 pm

Again, No True Atheist. Given that most of the world is religious, one can argue that religion is implicated in the rise of Hitchens, Dawkins, or any atheist or leader. By your standard, every bad act by an atheist can be traced back to some religious antecedent.

I think you are misunderstanding the point here. Religion made rise of Stalin possible. It is like arguing that the NRA can be blamed for the increase in suicide and murder rates.

Doubtingthomas, Perhaps this could be interesting to look at a little closer. I think Res Ipsa makes a good point but you are looking at a bit more focus.NRA supports private gun ownership and those guns contribute to suicide and murder. On the other hand people wish to own guns and purchase them with or without the NRA. In a similar way you note that Russian tradition of strong central government was supported by religion. But why did Russian religion do this? You have brought up how religious type thought may be used by gang members who are not supporting law and order. Religion appears to be flexible in its relationship to strong government. Is it possible that cultural patterns creating the kind of government in Russia also influenced how relgion approached government in Russia. After all it is not religion which creates the social need for governmental order. With or without religion people must try to figure out ways to maintain governmental order. It is not an automatic thing at all in this world.

There was reference in the thread to a fellow making the argument that Constantine's,political power was based upon earlier religiously based concepts of power. It is true that in that time there were no governments with a complete separation from religious beliefs. But I see Roman power as having moved away from religious control finding that military control was more direct and effective. People in the empire had choices shaped not so much by religious belief but by asking what do I do to avoid being killed by the Roman soldiers.

Russian people may well have had a social concern for an orderly government. People in every country do this. After the civil war which established the Bolshevik power people had to ask themselves what do I have to do to avoid the secret police, concentration camps or death.

What is behind my observations here is the idea that I find myself wondering just how much overlap there is in the realm of government which all people form in on way or the other and the ideas of religion. We first think of religion as beliefs about supernatural beings. I think such beliefs form and are guided by a concern for understanding and sharing right behavior. What is the best behavior? How does one find safe behavior. What behavior can we expect from our neighbors?

Another angle to look at the overlap is to notice that the communists who are force that create who Stalin was and put and maintained him in power were incidentally atheists but nobody is just an atheist. They have ideas. Without bothering with detail the communist saw a pattern in history which they believed, through extensive rational analysis was leading to a communist utopia and should be helped along.

I propose it was reason allied with a need for orderly government which created Stalin.