Atheists: What Do Gods Do?

[PureX]

Of course it is us. That would be my point as well. I agree that we are not automatons that can only operate in accordance to fixed instructions, but by the same token, it doesn't mean that these underlying instincts can be entirely shut off or ignored to the point they have no influence whatsoever.

Perfection is not necessary.

Take the sex drive for example. The drive is always there during our reproductive years urging us to mate. We have the capacity to resist the urge, even become celibate, but it take conscious effort, and there has to be a reason to want to resist or restrain from the impulse.

It isn't the impulse that is the problem. It isn't our not understanding the scientific mechanisms of the impulse that is the problem. It's our choosing to act on it inappropriately. In ways that harm us all.

Most everyone manages this adequately, but some small percentage do not. Even those who do manage it may still feel in conflict over it, especially in light of how they may have been socialized regarding the instinct.

The problem is that selfish, destructive behavior is contageous. One in ten engages in that behavior willfully, causing the other nine to engage in it defensively. And because no one wants to recognize what they have become as a result, we all pretend it's 'normal' and even 'wise' to do so.

Speaking of socialization, there are things we do that can exacerbate or play into underlying instincts like promoting and reinforcing racism, and there are things we can do to direct instinct to some positive use such as engaging empathy.

We have choices. We do not have to engage in selfish destructive behavior. But to have a choice, we have to recognize that we have a choice. Once again, it's our fear that drives us to make the irrational, destructive choices and then justify them by telling ourselves that we had no choice.

So if we are stuck with these instincts and emotions, I suggest it is better to not ignore or discount them, but understand how they affect us and design social systems that utilize these instincts to advantage in meeting our goals as well as providing individuals successful and healthy strategies to moderate instincts that might have negative impacts to society.

If only there were a place we could all go once or twice a week to be reminded that we have the choice NOT to succumb to our selfish fears, and NOT to seek our own well-being at the expense of anyone that dares to stand in the way. A place where we could go and talk to others that, like ourselves, don't want to be a complicit pawn in a giant monopoly game to determine who gets to be the demigods that rule over and destroy the world we all have to live in.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I get what you are saying here, but what you advocate still requires a change in attitude, which may very well require a change in believe, of everyone. You are still asking for change from the current state of affairs.

Mankind, collectively, is in desperate need of a fundamental change in attitude towards his fellows, don't you think?

 

[bobhikes]

I think they're significant, especially for the strong atheist. If one is going to reject all gods, shouldn't one at least have a working understanding of what they are or what they do beyond the Abrahamic paradigm?

As an atheist, I don't believe that to be true, I just need to be open to any new information. I have studied various religions Gods but it would take a lifetime to study all Gods. I can still reject All Gods based on the studies I have currently done, admitting when I have not studied their God and then based on how I feel I may or may not take up the studies on their God. To be honest I've done enough research on various peoples Gods and the Psychology of humans that I would be surprised if someone came up with a God worth investigating.

 

[MikeF]

Mankind, collectively, is in desperate need of a fundamental change in attitude towards his fellows, don't you think?

I do think such change is necessary. I also think that such change is occurring and has been occurring. It is literally impossible to create a fundamental change in mankind in one stroke. There are "growing pains" associated with change and since such change does not occur uniformly throughout all of mankind, the asymmetry in rates of change adds to the "discomfort" (overly euphemistic, I know). I'm not suggesting that we don't make every effort to mitigate such pain as best we can, I simply think it is unrealistic to think we can somehow avoid it altogether if that is one's hope or goal.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I do think such change is necessary. I also think that such change is occurring and has been occurring. It is literally impossible to create a fundamental change in mankind in one stroke. There are "growing pains" associated with change and since such change does not occur uniformly throughout all of mankind, the asymmetry in rates of change adds to the "discomfort" (overly euphemistic, I know). I'm not suggesting that we don't make every effort to mitigate such pain as best we can, I simply think it is unrealistic to think we can somehow avoid it altogether if that is one's hope or goal.

I agree there is no avoiding pain in this life. In fact I think we grow through pain, and our efforts to avoid it stifles growth and makes for more trauma further down the road. But the crisis or crises confronting humanity at the moment are not personal, they are collective and existential. It’s not pain we urgently need to avoid, it’s annihilation.

 

[MikeF]

It isn't the [sexual] impulse that is the problem. It isn't our not understanding the scientific mechanisms of the impulse that is the problem. It's our choosing to act on it inappropriately. In ways that harm us all.

And what determines what is appropriate and inappropriate when it comes to the sexual impulse? Is the appropriate attitude to consider it inherently sinful and to be fully suppressed except in the case of creating children within the bounds of holy matrimony, but at all times not to enjoy the experience so as to not risk damning one's soul? Or is the appropriate attitude to recognize the sexual impulse as a natural instinctual component of human beings and the impulse can be satisfied by one's self if desired or in concert with other consenting adults as long as appropriate steps are taken to avoid an unwanted pregnancy or contracting and spreading STD's.

Which position is more appropriate, and how do we know?

The problem is that selfish, destructive behavior is contageous. One in ten engages in that behavior willfully, causing the other nine to engage in it defensively. And because no one wants to recognize what they have become as a result, we all pretend it's 'normal' and even 'wise' to do so.

If selfishness is a core component of our inherent behaviors, perhaps it is better to accept it and direct it in socially productive ways, in concert with other instinctive behaviors. Can selfishness do good, or at the very least, regulated such that it does no harm? This is what I mean in terms of being smart about what influences the ways in which we behave and finding the best means by which to manage those influences productively.

If only there were a place we could all go once or twice a week to be reminded that we have the choice NOT to succumb to our selfish fears, and NOT to seek our own well-being at the expense of anyone that dares to stand in the way. A place where we could go and talk to others that, like ourselves, don't want to be a complicit pawn in a giant monopoly game to determine who gets to be the demigods that rule over and destroy the world we all have to live in.

Two problems here. First, who determines, controls, and dictates the message at these weekly pow-wow's. If you want to claim that it is the religious pulpit that is the solution to the problem you describe, you are being entirely naive. Beyond the lack of a uniform message (which is its own set of problems), church services have historically failed to solve the very problem you describe.

The second problem is how do you implement your weekly pow-wow globally across all cultures and nationalities? It's fine if the US adopts a passivist, cooperative international stance, but what about every other country?

I'm not saying we give up and not work the problem, I'm simply saying that your proposed solution is naive and ineffectual. I would start with everyone working within our understanding of actual reality as opposed to folks operating within their imagined artificial constructs of reality, but you seem to reject that approach out of hand. Ahh, well. I guess we simply have to suffer through as we have been doing.

 

[MikeF]

I agree there is no avoiding pain in this life. In fact I think we grow through pain, and our efforts to avoid it stifles growth and makes for more trauma further down the road. But the crisis or crises confronting humanity at the moment are not personal, they are collective and existential. It’s not pain we urgently need to avoid, it’s annihilation.

Annihilation? I suppose some share this concern, although I do not. I cannot really see a possibility for the extinction of human beings within the foreseeable future, or do you mean something else when you use the term annihilation?

 

[PureX]

And what determines what is appropriate and inappropriate when it comes to the sexual impulse?

I guess you didn't read the "in ways that harm us all" part.

Is the appropriate attitude to consider it inherently sinful and to be fully suppressed except in the case of creating children within the bounds of holy matrimony, but at all times not to enjoy the experience so as to not risk damning one's soul?

No, it's the "in ways that harm us all" (meaning collectively) part that determines inappropriate behavior. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with this.

Or is the appropriate attitude to recognize the sexual impulse as a natural instinctual component of human beings and the impulse can be satisfied by one's self if desired or in concert with other consenting adults as long as appropriate steps are taken to avoid an unwanted pregnancy or contracting and spreading STD's.

Which position is more appropriate, and how do we know?

It's NOT ABOUT THE SEXUAL IMPULSE. It's about acting on it inappropriately. I.E., in ways that are harmful to others, and therefor to us all, collectively.

If selfishness is a core component of our inherent behaviors, perhaps it is better to accept it and direct it in socially productive ways, in concert with other instinctive behaviors. Can selfishness do good, or at the very least, regulated such that it does no harm? This is what I mean in terms of being smart about what influences the ways in which we behave and finding the best means by which to manage those influences productively.

The problem we are currently having is that we are allowing our selfishness to override our collective responsibility and well-being. And we have developed a culture that proclaims this selfishness above all to be a virtue, and to encourage it, constantly (falsely calling it 'freedom').

Two problems here. First, who determines, controls, and dictates the message at these weekly pow-wow's.

Not 'who', but what. An ideal. The ideal of placing our collective responsibility and well being above our selfish desire to be in control of our own destiny. This is the reality check that we ALL need to face, and start living up to. Before we destroy ourselves with our selfish fear, greed, and stupidity pretending to be the great virtue of freedom and god-like control.

If you want to claim that it is the religious pulpit that is the solution to the problem you describe, you are being entirely naiv

It is currently the ONLY place in our human societies where the issue of forgoing selfishness in favor of collective responsibility and well-being are ever even being discussed. And as the churches become more and more infected by the lie that selfishness is freedom and is therefor a great God-given virtue, it is being perverted and lost even there. But I'll tell you were it's not being discussed, ever, and that is in the halls of science, or the boardrooms of commerce, or even in the chambers of politics.

It's only among our religious gatherings that we dare speak of it, and even there it's becoming more and more rare.

The second problem is how do you implement your weekly pow-wow globally across all cultures and nationalities? It's fine if the US adopts a passivist, cooperative international stance, but what about every other country?

The meetings are already happening in churches all over the world. But they're losing ground. Somehow we need to get our religious purveyors to stop pushing theological dogma and the illusion of divine control and start pushing collective responsibility toward each other's well-being, instead. And we have to stop the capitalists from constantly pushing their message of selfishness as the ultimate virtue everywhere we turn. We need to reign in commercial advertising, because it is the main promoter of our selfishness, greed, and stupidity.

 

[MikeF]

I guess you didn't read the "in ways that harm us all" part.

No, it's the "in ways that harm us all" (meaning collectively) part that determines inappropriate behavior. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with this.

It's NOT ABOUT THE SEXUAL IMPULSE. It's about acting on it inappropriately. I.E., in ways that are harmful to others, and therefor to us all, collectively.

Is there universal agreement on what constitutes harm, though? You haven't solved anything by adding that disclaimer, especially if harm is evaluated within differing imagined artificial construct of reality.

The problem we are currently having is that we are allowing our selfishness to override our collective responsibility and well-being. And we have developed a culture that proclaims this selfishness above all to be a virtue, and to encourage it, constantly (falsely calling it 'freedom').

This is the balancing act required of every political system. Everyone has self-interest and personal preference, and with billions of us, there will be lots of variation between individuals. You can't eliminate this reality, you can only reconcile it politically. It is a constant work in progress, with some political systems doing a seemingly better job than others, but again, 'better' is ever in the eyes of each individual beholder, and as such, someone is always going to be unhappy. Maybe everyone will be unavoidable unhappy, just to varying degrees.

Not 'who', but what. An ideal. The ideal of placing our collective responsibility and well being above our selfish desire to be in control of our own destiny. This is the reality check that we ALL need to face, and start living up to. Before we destroy ourselves with our selfish fear, greed, and stupidity pretending to be the great virtue of freedom.

Umm, any ideal is the subjective preference of an individual, so that brings us back to who. Who's ideals are to be universally adopted and why?

It is currently the ONLY place in our human societies where the issue of forgoing selfishness in favor of collective responsibility and well-being are ever even being discussed. And as the churches become more and more infected by the lie that selfishness is freedom and is therefor a great God-given virtue, it is being perverted even there. But I'll tell were it's not being discussed, ever, and that is in the halls of science, or the boardrooms of commercial business, or even in the chambers of politics.

It's only among our religious gatherings that we dare speak of it, and even there it's becoming more and more rare.

The meetings are already happening. But they're losing ground. Somehow we need to get our religious purveyors to stop pushing theological dogma and the illusion of divine control and start pushing collective responsibility toward each other's well-being, instead. And we have to stop the capitalists from constantly pushing their message of selfishness as the ultimate virtue everywhere we look. We need to reign in commercial advertising, because it is the main promoter of our selfishness, greed, and stupidity.

So, on the one hand, there is no such thing as religious indoctrination, we can't be told what to think and will make our own choices despite a religious upbringing, and then on the other hand we have to control advertising because we can be negatively influenced by its indoctrination and we are not strong enough to resist it. So which is it? Can we be indoctrinated or not?

 

[PureX]

Is there universal agreement on what constitutes harm, though?

Pretty much, there is. It's not exactly rocket science. What's difficult is our being honest about it. Especially when we're the ones doing the harm.

This is the balancing act required of every political system. Everyone has self-interest and personal preference, and with billions of us, there will be lots of variation between individuals.

There's nothing to "balance". Collective well-being takes precidence over individual desire because we are a collective, cooperative species, and we cannot live otherwise. Preying on each other was never a 'good idea'. And it never will be. We got away with it up until now, but that time has passed. So the question now, is, how do we get this new reality into our heads?

You can't eliminate this reality, you can only reconcile it politically. It is a constant work in progress, with some political systems doing a seemingly better job than others, but again, 'better' is ever in the eyes of each individual beholder, and as such, someone is always going to be unhappy. Maybe everyone will be unavoidable unhappy, just to varying degrees.

Perfection is not a requirement. You keep forgetting this. And our "happiness" is a choice. Our well-being is not.

So, on the one hand, there is no such thing as religious indoctrination, we can't be told what to think and will make our own choices despite a religious upbringing, and then on the other hand we have to control advertising because we can be negatively influenced by its indoctrination and we are not strong enough to resist it. So which is it? Can we be indoctrinated or not?

When did I ever say that we could not be indoctrinated? Or even that we shouldn't be?

 

[MikeF]

Pretty much, there is. It's not exactly rocket science. What's difficult is our being honest about it. Especially when we're the ones doing the harm.

Even the ancient commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", has exceptions. What if the difficulty of being honest about it does require rocket science to overcome?

There's nothing to "balance". Collective well-being takes precidence over individual desire because we are a collective, cooperative species, and we cannot live otherwise. Preying on each other was never a 'good idea'. And it never will be. We got away with it up until now, but that time has passed. So the question now, is, how do we get this new reality into our heads?

What if everyone is completely miserable in your utopian collective because personal preferences are utterly trampled and disregarded. You end up with a revolution on your hands. No, I still maintain that balance is required.

Perfection is not a requirement. You keep forgetting this. And our "happiness" is a choice. Our well-being is not.

Seems like a good justification for slavery as any. As long as all their needs are met, the slaves simply have to choose to be happy.

When did I ever say that we could not be indoctrinated? Or even that we shouldn't be?

My memory is getting bad, but not that bad. We had quite a long discussion on the topic as I recall. Perhaps I'll make the effort to find the thread.

 

[PureX]

Even the ancient commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", has exceptions. What if the difficulty of being honest about it does require rocket science to overcome?

There has never been an exception to that command and there never should be. Because it's an ideal. Perfection is not a requirement, it's a goal.

What if everyone is completely miserable in your utopian collective because personal preferences are utterly trampled and disregarded. You end up with a revolution on your hands. No, I still maintain that balance is required.

Based in a silly "what if"? That's not very reasonable of you. Anyway, a whole lot of people are miserable, now. And it's getting worse instead of better.

Seems like a good justification for slavery as any. As long as all their needs are met, the slaves simply have to choose to be happy.

When you have to jump to wild extremes to justify you position, your position is very weak.

My memory is getting bad, but not that bad. We had quite a long discussion on the topic as I recall. Perhaps I'll make the effort to find the thread.

What I stated and what you "understood" it to mean has always been quite different.

 

[Audie]

Mankind, collectively, is in desperate need of a fundamental change in attitude towards his fellows, don't you think?

Maybe you are not talking about human beings.

 

[MikeF]

There has never been an exception to that command and there never should be. Because it's an ideal. Perfection is not a requirement, it's a goal.

Based in a silly "what if"? That's not very reasonable of you. Anyway, a whole lot of people are miserable, now. And it's getting worse instead of better.

When you have to jump to wild extremes to justify you position, your position is very weak.

What I stated and what you "understood" it to mean has always been quite different.

You seemed to indicate a balance approach was not required so I provided some extreme unbalanced examples that fit your criteria of cooperative societies with "happiness" simply being a choice. If I have not swayed you to the position of a balanced approach, so be it.

I am quite sure I misunderstand your comments from time to time. I just recall you downplaying the lasting effects of religious education (indoctrination) on the beliefs and attitudes held by indoctrinees later in life as adults. I think your response was that my attitude was equating such indoctrination with mind control which you said was very rare and hard to pull off. I took this to mean, as post-indoctrination adults, they would be exposed to the full marketplace of ideas and could freely to choose from that marketplace, completely without influence from their childhood indoctrination. If I was mistaken, I apologize. Perhaps you would weigh in as to your thoughts regarding the lasting effects of childhood religious indoctrination. Does it have lasting effects or not? And just for clarification, I don't mean uniformly so, but rather that a statistically significant percentage will have lasting influence.

 

[PureX]

Prioritizing the well being of the many does not ignore or negate the well being of the few, or of the individual, unless the few or the individual are seeking their own well being at the expense of the many. So no 'balance' is required. The well being of the many and the well being of the individual are the SAME well being ... the same goal.

We have been so trained by greedy capitalism to believe that we must contend with each other for everything that we think our well being can only be increased by decreasing someone else's. Hence your presumed need for a 'balance' between the desires of the individual and the needs of the collective. But no such balance is needed when each is being served by the other.

 

[MikeF]

Prioritizing the well being of the many does not ignore or negate the well being of the few, or of the individual, unless the few or the individual are seeking their own well being at the expense of the many. So no 'balance' is required. The well being of the many and the well being of the individual are the SAME well being ... the same goal.

We have been so trained by greedy capitalism to believe that we must contend with each other for everything that we think our well being can only be increased by decreasing someone else's. Hence your presumed need for a 'balance' between the desires of the individual and the needs of the collective. But no such balance is needed when each is being served by the other.

That's fine. I think we are talking past each other a bit.

Other than letting societal evolution continue in its current "natural" state or pace, if you will, what steps should be taken to bring about your goals more quickly?