Nemisis; nice reply, thank you!
But you are forgetting that societies are the ones who invent religions.
No I'm not! But what relevance is that? They invented bronze; it worked great at the time, but is now superceeded by better things.
They are one and the same;
No they're not! Society can operate without religion. Religion cannot operate without society.
... if the individuals are not part of the solution they are part of the problem. Religion is a massive part of may societies, so much so that it reflects in the people’s everyday living, even if they are not religious themselves, they are one and the same, as they all come from the minds of men.
I do agree that, seemingly, say in the 'West', although it is politically very secular outside of the USA and a few other countries, and although the degree of social secularisation varies, the ethos is predominantly Judaeo-Christian.
However, that ethos has reached the point in most places where only the most fundamental aspects are a result of this ethos (do not kill, do not steal, etc.), and these aspects are part of the intesecting social values held by most people on this planet regardless of religious or cultural origin. The details are lost, held to be subject to an individual's conscience, or, because they do no harm, seen to be freedoms allowed under humanistic notions of human rights. Thus, I think that religious reflection in everyday thinking is steadily decreasing, and the core intersecting social values held in common by most cultures, and humanistic notions of human rights, are what is increasingly reflected in everyday living.
My point is why should anyone have to ‘subscribe’, or more importantly ‘comply’, to any of 'society’s' views if there is no God?
Because the reason those values (as described above, the core values held in common) are 'right' is the same, irrespective of the existance of god. You say religon and society are the same thing. I disagree. I say societal values and society are the same thing; it is impossible to have a society without values, as these values are what allows soceity to function; people enter, as it were, a reciprocal arrangement with other members of society not to do x to other people, on condition x is not done to them. People doing x are punished, as if everyone did x there would be a destabalisation of society that would do the majority no good, even if those doing x were personally benefited by their actions.
In view of this, let us examone your next statement;
No God=no purposeful design, meaning, or set morals standards. Who can say whether a dog’s opinion is lower than a man’s, a microbe's, or a flea's if all life is a just cosmic accident?
What is the difference between purposeful design and 'purposeless' evolution, to the organisms at the pointy end of existence today? Nothing. Is a life in a 'god' Universe intrinsically meaningfull compared to a 'godless' Universe? No, as life only has meaning if you do something with it, be there a god or no god. Thus, if you remove what an atheist would describe as the 'fantasy element' of a theists world view, so that meaning is only definable by what can be seen in the here-and-now, as distinct from including alleged meaning in the here-after, both a theist and an atheist would have the same meaning in their life if they did things of equivalent value to themselves, irrespective of whether god exists or not.
As for the assertion that "Who can say whether a dog’s opinion is lower than a man’s, a microbe's, or a flea's if all life is a just cosmic accident?", well, HUMANKIND can say whether a dog’s opinion is lower than a man’s, a microbe's, or a flea's. The fact that we are the only species we have knowledge of that can SAY what its opinion is, whilst not a demonstration of rightness, certainly a demonstration of opinion. Dog's opinions seemingly begin and end with their next meal, near enough. There's a few species I think that should be given the benefit of the doubt as regards enhanced rights due to their high level of intelligence, but even they haven't expressed much in the way of opinion, other than "We like fish" in the case of dolphins!
Numbers hold no water either 'one million people may view X as bad and 27 persons view X as good' if there is no ‘cosmic setter of standards’ then how can any entity say their personal opinion is the best, or the most right?Allowing mass opinions to be the norm, or the obligated 'society' accepted view is no different than the same ones making up a religion, even it’s a strict fundamentalist one, neither can be right or wrong if there is no God, they are all just opinions of pointless accidental entities. That is why I said, 'why not view ourselves as gods', as our opinions can never be any more than just opinions, if there is no designer, or purpose to our existence.
Try the Universal declaration of human rights! It's a good starting point; it is possible to come upo with abstract standards, in fact it's quite easy. Think about what you wouldn't like happening to you, and make it a law for that to be wrong to happen to anyone. Exclude obvious personal opinions, like 'kill all spiders', and you get;
Do not kill
Do not steal
Do not make peole live in fear
Do not silence peoples' opinions
Do not discriminate against people
Such things are not "making up a religion"; who gets worshipped? Such things are not "just opinions of pointless accidental entities", as through the combination of subjective views we can form a concensus of what is objectively right and wrong, and have sufficient 'error checking' through abstract formulations of human rights and principles to minimise error caused by populist social movements that contain deletrious memes in contradiction of the abstract standards. Thus, there is 'right and wrong', and while it might involve a lot of opinion over small issues, over large issues, there is sufficient concordence to provide meaning.
Also, you seem to have a presupposition that the values 'god' (which god? YHWH? Allah? Qualexocotle? Zeus?) gives us are better than that which we are able to determine ourselves. Look at the problem going over the Old Testament using 21st Century humanist values causes! YHWH comes out as an inhuman game player, who even if it did exist, should not be worshipped as it would be WRONG to approve of a being that did such things even if it happened to be god.
I do have to apologies however; when I said 'infallable men' I meant 'fallable men' (as the context bears out... infallability cannot 'develop', it is or isn't). Thanks for spotting my silly mistake. I still hold that 'the slow curve of humanity is towards justice'; I was in no way saying there were no 'mistakes', the fact religions make as awful mistakes as non-religons is a topic I don't think we even want to go near!!
In viw of the above contentions like "plus the fact that any opinion is only valid for the one expressing it" are not supportable; likewise, saying "How can anyone criticise an oppressive religious fundamentalist society if they are all cosmic accidents without purpose or meaning?" Because they (or their results) can be determined to be wrong by abstract principles that are hard to argue with, and by the concensus of people's opinion over time. You say "Suffering is irrelevant"; stick your hand in a flame and say that again - that's an empty arguement to anyone in pain, and if the "human mind" can come up with a "measuring device for ‘good or bad’", well, life can't be that meaningless... can it?
We might be cosmic joke, but WE can define meaning and give our mives that meaning.
Now, if that's being 'gods', well, guilty as charged under YOUR definiton of god. I don't think that makes people act like gods. I don't want anyone to fall down and perform an act of worship to me (other than the one that already does...).
You say;
All you are trying to do is turn mass human’s opinions in to a form of a god’s opinions, therefore the mass must somehow be ‘right’, and therefore we must conform to it. Reasoning is only another human made up tool of judging reality, if there is no God, all the end conclusions are no more valid than the beginning, as there is no great arbiter of 'Truth' our there, and all you are doing is making up another set of rules just like a religion, and calling it ‘secular law’, or ‘justice’.
I would say I am not making anything up, just asserting what is already there stirpped of the mechanics of superstision. Bad is bad because people think it's bad AND PUT THOSE WORDS IN THE MOUTH OF THEIR GODS. Thus, saying bad is what people say it is is cutting out the 'middleman', namely god.
As regards your closing comment "There are scientists who believe in God", yup, I know. They normally don't believe the world was created in six days, and that homosexuals should be stoned, and that people they disagree with will burn in hell.
The ones that DO believe such things I have a problem with, as they cannot prove their beliefs are any righter than mine, yet would often, in ideal world have them imposed.
The ones that ARE more liberal in their beliefs, as outlined, I have no problem with; I cannot prove their god does not exist, and they are not seeking to impose their beliefs on others.
And evolution is not a religon; there are similar characteristics, but no more similarity bewteen evolution and religion than between supporting the red-sock and religion. The paradigms are SO different; how can a school of thought that strives for verifiability and attempts to give an objective view of reality be compared with one that is not verifiable and looks to internal validation of a subjective reality?
Thanks again for your reply
