5 ms·

>We need only concern ourselves with what's external and the impact it has on society. This I can wholeheartedly agree with. In what way is atheism a danger o

>We need only concern ourselves with what's external and the impact it has on society. This I can wholeheartedly agree with. In what way is atheism a danger or harm to society except that it violates your proposed monoculture?

antibasilisk 3y ago
>In what way is atheism a danger or harm to society except that it violates your proposed monoculture? Violating said monoculture is a problem in itself because it leads to a population that cannot collaborate or agree even broadly on morals that concern day to day life. We're seeing this right now in America, where each side of the aisle (which broadly speaking is cut across religious lines) is becoming progressively angrier as they realise the others beliefs necessarily requires capitulation from their side on some issues, in ways that cannot be accepted, such as abortion or the integration of homosexuals and transgenders. This is gradually destabilizing the country.
- hawkesnest 3y ago
  Religion is in no way a force for bringing people together. Anti-Semitism is rampant among many Christians. Catholics and Protestants have quite a history of not seeing eye-to-eye. Shia and Sunni Muslims are pretty notorious at this point for their battles. Your examples are counter to your own point. Jews don't seem to have the same views on abortion that the evangelicals appear to have. The United Methodist church is splitting because of differing views on homosexuality and other LGBTQ+ issues. Having common values is very important, but predicating it on all the doctrine of a set of religions or a single religion seems shaky at best. I also noticed you still haven't given a good reason. Your opening line is circular - violating the monoculture is bad because it disrupts the monoculture. Instead of proposing a broad set of morals outside of religion, you intend to (by force?) push a set of morals that YOU dictate based off ancient texts of dubious origin.
  - antibasilisk 3y ago
    >Religion is in no way a force for bringing people together. Anti-Semitism is rampant among many Christians. Catholics and Protestants have quite a history of not seeing eye-to-eye. Shia and Sunni Muslims are pretty notorious at this point for their battles. People will not cease to differ, yet despite all of that they agree that atheism is disastrous. >Your examples are counter to your own point. Jews don't seem to have the same views on abortion that the evangelicals appear to have. The United Methodist church is splitting because of differing views on homosexuality and other LGBTQ+ issues. This is a very shallow understanding of religion. There will always be fringe groups who differ. The fact is religious texts have a meaning, that someone wants to negate that meaning makes no difference. If text did not have meaning you would not be able to understand what I am saying. Jews, Muslims and Christians all have slightly different beliefs on abortion between them for example, but they all agree the unborn have certain rights. The differences are minor such as when the unborn is a person, if the unborn can be mourned, what constitutes necessity that could justify an abortion etc. None of these groups permit elective abortion. >Instead of proposing a broad set of morals outside of religion It is not possible to believe that religion dictates morals, while also believing in morals external to your religion, because it entails contradiction. >you intend to (by force?) push a set of morals that YOU dictate based off ancient texts of dubious origin If my morals were based on conjecture, they would be just as baseless as your moral conjecture, regardless what the conjecture was. You have no moral basis from which to criticize me, you only have personal preferences, and there is no god of liberal humanism that will punish me in a way that I cannot escape if I fail to comply.
    - _npe3 3y ago
      "You have no moral basis from which to criticize me, you only have personal preferences, and there is no god of liberal humanism that will punish me in a way that I cannot escape if I fail to comply. " What does this have to do with your argument?
      - antibasilisk 3y ago
        I was responding to the text I quoted.

antibasilisk 3y ago

>In what way is atheism a danger or harm to society except that it violates your proposed monoculture? Violating said monoculture is a problem in itself because it leads to a population that cannot collaborate or agree even broadly on morals that concern day to day life. We're seeing this right now in America, where each side of the aisle (which broadly speaking is cut across religious lines) is becoming progressively angrier as they realise the others beliefs necessarily requires capitulation from their side on some issues, in ways that cannot be accepted, such as abortion or the integration of homosexuals and transgenders. This is gradually destabilizing the country.

hawkesnest 3y ago
Religion is in no way a force for bringing people together. Anti-Semitism is rampant among many Christians. Catholics and Protestants have quite a history of not seeing eye-to-eye. Shia and Sunni Muslims are pretty notorious at this point for their battles. Your examples are counter to your own point. Jews don't seem to have the same views on abortion that the evangelicals appear to have. The United Methodist church is splitting because of differing views on homosexuality and other LGBTQ+ issues. Having common values is very important, but predicating it on all the doctrine of a set of religions or a single religion seems shaky at best. I also noticed you still haven't given a good reason. Your opening line is circular - violating the monoculture is bad because it disrupts the monoculture. Instead of proposing a broad set of morals outside of religion, you intend to (by force?) push a set of morals that YOU dictate based off ancient texts of dubious origin.
- antibasilisk 3y ago
  >Religion is in no way a force for bringing people together. Anti-Semitism is rampant among many Christians. Catholics and Protestants have quite a history of not seeing eye-to-eye. Shia and Sunni Muslims are pretty notorious at this point for their battles. People will not cease to differ, yet despite all of that they agree that atheism is disastrous. >Your examples are counter to your own point. Jews don't seem to have the same views on abortion that the evangelicals appear to have. The United Methodist church is splitting because of differing views on homosexuality and other LGBTQ+ issues. This is a very shallow understanding of religion. There will always be fringe groups who differ. The fact is religious texts have a meaning, that someone wants to negate that meaning makes no difference. If text did not have meaning you would not be able to understand what I am saying. Jews, Muslims and Christians all have slightly different beliefs on abortion between them for example, but they all agree the unborn have certain rights. The differences are minor such as when the unborn is a person, if the unborn can be mourned, what constitutes necessity that could justify an abortion etc. None of these groups permit elective abortion. >Instead of proposing a broad set of morals outside of religion It is not possible to believe that religion dictates morals, while also believing in morals external to your religion, because it entails contradiction. >you intend to (by force?) push a set of morals that YOU dictate based off ancient texts of dubious origin If my morals were based on conjecture, they would be just as baseless as your moral conjecture, regardless what the conjecture was. You have no moral basis from which to criticize me, you only have personal preferences, and there is no god of liberal humanism that will punish me in a way that I cannot escape if I fail to comply.
  - _npe3 3y ago
    "You have no moral basis from which to criticize me, you only have personal preferences, and there is no god of liberal humanism that will punish me in a way that I cannot escape if I fail to comply. " What does this have to do with your argument?
    - antibasilisk 3y ago
      I was responding to the text I quoted.