We’re in the 21st century, and the vast majority of us still believe in an utterly and obviously fictional creator deity. Plenty of people, even in developed countries with decent educational systems, still believe in ghosts or magic (e.g. voodoo). And I–an atheist and a skeptic–am told I need to respect these patently false beliefs as cultural traditions.

Fuck that. They’re bad cultural traditions, undeserving of respect. Child-proofing society for these intellectually stunted people doesn’t help them; it is in fact a disservice to them to pretend it’s okay to go through life believing these things. We should demand that people contend with reality on a factual basis by the time they reach adulthood (even earlier, if I’m being completely honest). We shouldn’t be coddling people who profess beliefs that are demonstrably false, simply because their feelings might get hurt.

  • 30mag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    How do you construct a moral framework with science and statistics? I’m not saying it can’t be done, but I would like to hear how you think it is possible to do so, and how you think we ought to go about it. I have thought about it a little, but I don’t see an obvious way to go about it. That is to say that how you would go about it is not obvious to me. I don’t very well understand what you are imagining.

    The following are just ideas you might use as a jumping off point or an example. I don’t expect you to answer all of the questions or anything like that, that would be unreasonable. I don’t have a problem if you don’t touch any of these examples. Just explain how you think we ought to approach this. How would you change the law with respect to murder or assault? How would you change the tax code? How would you change law with respect to financial institutions? How would you resolve the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians? Why is religion impeding us from making these changes?

    • ComicalMayhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m concerned you seem to imply here that we require some abstract deity to determine what our moral guidelines should be. Take the following hypothetical: if it was proven tomorrow beyond any reasonable doubt that no deity exists or has ever existed and all religious texts were hogwash written by crazed lunatics, would it be ok then to go out and do whatever you felt like, whether that was murder, robbery, or something else?

      In other words, is it solely a belief in a deity that is keeping you from going out and committing extremely immoral acts?

      To answer your question though, you would use philosophy, of which science and statistics play a role, and common sense. It doesn’t take a genius philosopher to figure out that maybe we shouldn’t randomly kill other people.

      • 30mag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m concerned you seem to imply here that we require some abstract deity to determine what our moral guidelines should be.

        No. That was not my intention. I’m trying to better understand where and why you (or anyone) think religion is holding us back and how we can move forward.

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      “How do you construct a moral framework with science and statistics?”

      How do you construct a moral framework with essentially a book comprised of a roughly translated 2000-year-old telephone game that originated with goat herders in the Middle East? What a total bullshit argument.

      • 30mag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What a total bullshit argument.

        It isn’t an argument or a rhetorical question.