Okay, but if they did issue such decrees, and religion itself is a myth as atheists claim, then it follows that they never issued such decrees for religious reasons. So why did they issue them? Just like today we issue laws in order to prevent wrong-doings and harm, so too, they must have perceived harm in those behaviours that they issued religious injunctions against. And therefore it seems quite clear that the position of social conservatism, given that take, would be separate from the position of religion - given atheism. Why are there so few atheist social conservatives?Religions have content that's socially conservative. Gods, prophets, etc.(whatever it might be depending on the religion at hand) supposedly issue decrees against certain sorts of behaviors, clothing options, diets, etc., and that content doesn't change. — Terrapin Station
And therefore it seems quite clear that the position of social conservatism, given that take, would be separate from the position of religion — Agustino
Okay, but then why are there so few atheist social conservatives? Because remember, the few back in the day religions were founded, who were in power and had brain compared to the uneducated majority, if atheism is true, it would mean they founded religions and allowed them to flourish in order to justify their actions to the people. They could justify much more easily by "God said it" to the uneducated majority, than by explanation - the uneducated majority couldn't understand explanation, but they could understand "God said it". But this means that these people with the brains had been atheists themselves, and used religion merely as a tool. If so, they must have had independent reason - reason apart from religion - to issue the social conservative decrees they did. So this proves that there are independent reasons for holding to social conservative positions, and raises the question as to why there are so few atheist social conservatives today?No one is saying they're identical. You asked why they're associated with each other. That's why. — Terrapin Station
if atheism is true, it would mean they founded religions and allowed them to flourish in order to justify their actions to the people. — Agustino
I am saying that if atheism is true, then atheists created religions. Head over to a website like Quora, or Reddit, and so forth, and you'll see most atheists there always associating social conservatism with religion, to the point they think that folks cannot be socially conservative unless they are religious. And yet this seems strange.What are you talking about? Are you positing something like the idea that "atheists created religions"??? — Terrapin Station
Because if atheism is true, then atheists themselves (those who created religions) had independent reasons to hold to social conservative positions - so it seems strange to see today so many atheists who would find social conservatism as anathema to their position, and equivalent to basically being religious.(And what would that have to do with the topic you presented in this thread?) — Terrapin Station
I am saying that if atheism is true, then atheists created religions. — Agustino
They could justify much more easily by "God said it" to the uneducated majority, than by explanation - the uneducated majority couldn't understand explanation, but they could understand "God said it". — Agustino
It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation [Emphasis mine].
raises the question as to why there are so few atheist social conservatives today? — Agustino
Atheism being true obviously doesn't mean a lack of belief in God is true. It means there is no God.Okay, so how would "A lack of belief in God" being true (do you mean it's true that the person has a lack of belief in God? Or are you more saying if the belief has right what the world is like?)--anyway, how would the lack of belief in God have any sort of implication for the creation of religions? — Terrapin Station
Atheism being true obviously doesn't mean a lack of belief in God is true. It means there is no God. — Agustino
That implies atheists created religions because the folks who have created religions were the educated - those who could, first of all, write, and write very well. If you look at some of the Books from the Bible for example, they are very well written, and they illustrate quite complex points. Clearly they weren't written by idiots, or uncultured men and women. If there is no God, and if no God actually communicated with them, it is obvious that they would be aware of this when writing the religious texts. As for why they created religion - simple - to have an easy way to teach and enforce morality on their fellow men.Okay, so if the atheistic belief has right what the world is like, then that implies that atheists created religions because _____? (And then what's the argument there?) — Terrapin Station
That implies atheists created religions because the folks who have created religions were the educated - those who could, first of all, write, and write very well. — Agustino
Clearly they weren't written by idiots, or uncultured men and women. If there is no God, and if no God actually communicated with them, it is obvious that they would be aware of this when writing the religious texts. — Agustino
First of all I struggle to understand this sentence - the atheistic belief HAS right?? What the hell does that mean?"The atheistic belief has right what the world is like." — Terrapin Station
If it gets right. If the belief coheres with what's the case in the world.First of all I struggle to understand this sentence - the atheistic belief HAS right?? What the hell does that mean?
It's impossible to claim God communicated with me, unless I really did have consecutive experiences of God communicating. — Agustino
Sorry but such expressions are totally foreign to me. It gets right? How can something get right? Something may BE right, but GET right?If it gets right. If the belief coheres with what's the case in the world. — Terrapin Station
Yes I agree. Therefore if they lie about it, they are atheists.it's not at all impossible to claim that x communicated with you without really having an experience (or consecutive experiences if you like) of x communicating with you. How is that possible? By lying. — Terrapin Station
Yes but it would require this to happen consecutively, over almost an entire life-span. That's highly unlikely and dubious. Apart from this, I would need to suffer of no sort of mental illness which impedes me from influencing my fellow men in order to be able to start a religion.Of course, it's also possible to claim that x communicated with you where you really did have an experience (or consecutive experiences) of x communicating with you but where no x communicated with you. In other words, your mental phenomena could be illusory, or you could be mistaken about how your mental phenomena correlate with the world. — Terrapin Station
No but they certainly probably were, and surely I have no reason to assume otherwise.It's not at all the case that the people who created religions had to be atheists just in case there are no gods. — Terrapin Station
How would they come to religious belief if there is no God? Moses for example, claimed to come to religious belief and came down the mountain with tablets written by God. He surely must know if God really communicated with him or not. And if God didn't, and he is lying, then he knows he is lying.The people who created religions could have been (and surely were) religious believers. — Terrapin Station
Yes I agree. Therefore if they lie about it, they are atheists. — Agustino
Yes but it would require this to happen consecutively, over almost an entire life-span. — Agustino
That's highly unlikely and dubious. — Agustino
Apart from this, I would need to suffer of no sort of mental illness which impedes me from influencing my fellow men in order to be able to start a religion. — Agustino
No but they certainly probably were, and surely I have no reason to assume otherwise. — Agustino
How would they come to religious belief if there is no God? — Agustino
Okay, how does Joe form a belief in God? He tells others that he believes in God because God has spoken to him. If that isn't so, why doesn't he give the real reason for his belief? I'm not saying that these that you list aren't possibilities - they are logical possibilties, but I don't care about that, because they're very unlikely.Joe believes in God. Joe doesn't believe that God has communicated with him. Joe says that God has communicated with him. Joe is lying about this. Well, Joe believes in God. It's not true that Joe is an atheist. — Terrapin Station
I'm talking pragmatically here not logically. I don't care about having an air-tight logical argument for this.So that something is highly unlikely/dubious doesn't imply that the alternative is a logical implication. Logical implications only obtain when the alternative is (logically) impossible. — Terrapin Station
If you look at religious texts, these are very rarely cited as reasons, and most of the religious texts don't deal with explaining science or the reason for the occurrence of natural events at all. They mostly deal with history and morality.Via attempting to explain natural phenomena, various regular occurrences, various disasters, etc. — Terrapin Station
But so it is with everyone. This holds for progressive liberals too - they can't suddenly be anti-gay marriage and still be progressive liberals...Social conservatives are foundational, tied to certain basic beliefs which they cannot change and still remain socially conservative — Cavacava
-- Pinker (2006)In the Tragic Vision, moreover, human nature has not changed. Traditions such as religion, the family, social customs, sexual mores, and political institutions are a distillation of time-tested techniques that let us work around the shortcomings of human nature. They are as applicable to humans today as they were when they developed, even if no one today can explain their rationale.
Why are there so few atheist social conservatives? — Agustino
Group think and peer pressure. — Thorongil
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.