3 ms·

> loyalty, tradition, or purity. Those three just seem to mean religion.

by throwawaysleep 1y ago

delichon 1y ago
I'm an atheist who values loyalty and see no contradiction there.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  Same. I also value tradition, but not for religious reasons I think tradition is generally a good way to build bonds in society A society without social traditions is going to be a very atomic society and I think that is kinda bad Yes, historically most social traditions were based in religion but they don't have to be imo. We have to find ways to build strong social connections in other ways Strong social connections are extremely important. United we stand, Divided we fall
  - ajdjcbxjxnx 1y ago
    I’m fully in agreement with your post except for > but they don't have to be imo Are there any historical examples you’ve seen of this working? ie a society not binding over race / religion? I’ve come to terms with religion being necessary, even if I don’t prescribe to it. I benefitted heavily from growing up in a white, christian european society even though I rebelled against it. And after personally seeing good candidates (everyone passed them with highest marks) get turned down for jobs because they were white/asian males, it really opened my eyes to the whole world being tribal and I was the one tricked into thinking an alternative was possible. I still like to think it’s possible, but I don’t see evidence for it.
    - bluefirebrand 1y ago
      > Are there any historical examples you’ve seen of this working? ie a society not binding over race / religion? I'm not widely studied enough on History to say that this has never happened, but I think you're right. I am not aware of any Maybe it is not actually possible without religion, but I like to think that people can find a strong set of shared cultural and social values without the metaphysical aspect of religion
- kgwxd 1y ago
  I suspect you mean you value people not stabbing you in the back, and strive to not stab people in the back. That, people you consider close, will work through rough patches, to some reasonable degree. Etc. That's just basic, bi-directional, human decency, it's not the "loyalty" they're talking about. They're talking blind devotion, under any and all circumstance. The "superior" can do no wrong. "Loyalty" isn't even the right word for that, but they'll use it anyway, just like they hijack "morality". Same with "tradition". They're talking about the king raping every woman before marriage. Seppuku from anyone that fails to meet their demands. People with "higher cognitive abilities" aren't seriously resistant to the annual potluck. The "purity" thing is just disgusting on it's face. Would love to see someone try to defend that idea here. This isn't a matter of cognitive ability. Even small children easily recognize, and resist, these abuses of power, until it's beaten out of them. There's an accurate name for the people that hold these "morals", it's "submissive". If you still don't see a conflict, perhaps you did actually mean that you value a kind of uni-directional loyalty, but good luck getting much of it without at least 1 other form of power. Theism is a highly effective tool, that's why so many powerful, self-proclaimed atheist, that are seeking more and more power, eventually "convert" anyway. It comes with a huge bag of free rubes.
jacknews 1y ago
Indeed I was about to post the same. The clue is probably in the title 'moral foundations'. Some tradition, loyalty and authority might be good, or even required for society to function, but they don't define 'goodness' to me, just 'conformity'. Take for example FGM. Are people who follow that tradition, accede to authority that dictates it, and loyal to it's tenets, 'good'?

> loyalty, tradition, or purity. Those three just seem to mean religion.

delichon 1y ago

I'm an atheist who values loyalty and see no contradiction there.

bluefirebrand 1y ago
Same. I also value tradition, but not for religious reasons I think tradition is generally a good way to build bonds in society A society without social traditions is going to be a very atomic society and I think that is kinda bad Yes, historically most social traditions were based in religion but they don't have to be imo. We have to find ways to build strong social connections in other ways Strong social connections are extremely important. United we stand, Divided we fall
- ajdjcbxjxnx 1y ago
  I’m fully in agreement with your post except for > but they don't have to be imo Are there any historical examples you’ve seen of this working? ie a society not binding over race / religion? I’ve come to terms with religion being necessary, even if I don’t prescribe to it. I benefitted heavily from growing up in a white, christian european society even though I rebelled against it. And after personally seeing good candidates (everyone passed them with highest marks) get turned down for jobs because they were white/asian males, it really opened my eyes to the whole world being tribal and I was the one tricked into thinking an alternative was possible. I still like to think it’s possible, but I don’t see evidence for it.
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    > Are there any historical examples you’ve seen of this working? ie a society not binding over race / religion? I'm not widely studied enough on History to say that this has never happened, but I think you're right. I am not aware of any Maybe it is not actually possible without religion, but I like to think that people can find a strong set of shared cultural and social values without the metaphysical aspect of religion
kgwxd 1y ago
I suspect you mean you value people not stabbing you in the back, and strive to not stab people in the back. That, people you consider close, will work through rough patches, to some reasonable degree. Etc. That's just basic, bi-directional, human decency, it's not the "loyalty" they're talking about. They're talking blind devotion, under any and all circumstance. The "superior" can do no wrong. "Loyalty" isn't even the right word for that, but they'll use it anyway, just like they hijack "morality". Same with "tradition". They're talking about the king raping every woman before marriage. Seppuku from anyone that fails to meet their demands. People with "higher cognitive abilities" aren't seriously resistant to the annual potluck. The "purity" thing is just disgusting on it's face. Would love to see someone try to defend that idea here. This isn't a matter of cognitive ability. Even small children easily recognize, and resist, these abuses of power, until it's beaten out of them. There's an accurate name for the people that hold these "morals", it's "submissive". If you still don't see a conflict, perhaps you did actually mean that you value a kind of uni-directional loyalty, but good luck getting much of it without at least 1 other form of power. Theism is a highly effective tool, that's why so many powerful, self-proclaimed atheist, that are seeking more and more power, eventually "convert" anyway. It comes with a huge bag of free rubes.

jacknews 1y ago

Indeed I was about to post the same. The clue is probably in the title 'moral foundations'. Some tradition, loyalty and authority might be good, or even required for society to function, but they don't define 'goodness' to me, just 'conformity'. Take for example FGM. Are people who follow that tradition, accede to authority that dictates it, and loyal to it's tenets, 'good'?