> That sounds more like a problem of close minded narrow focus on economic output instead of culture, virtue and spiritual traditions.

I’m starting to be more sensitive to the argument that without god, people are unable to have a strong moral foundation. Not for the people expressing creativity in how they fuck, but as a check on those in power.

Morality is a social construct.

We created it for ourselves and at its core is our social nature and the ability to feel Empathy for other humans/creatures.

Now I lead with that because there are historical cases for both religious and non religious people committing horrific acts, both groups having whatever form of "morals" and still those acts happened.

Morals based on the idea of an all seeing eye are also questionable at the root, if you only do the "right" thing because you fear consequences then how is that better than the government, police etc acting as a your personal moral compass except to extend the potential punishment beyond the current perceived lifetime.

if somebody feeds the needy out of the belief that they are doing the right thing under an all seeing eye, in what way is that worse than a non all seeing eye believer not feeding the needy?

But those aren't the only options?

There's 4 at least

Seeing eye believer feeds the needy

Non believer feeds the needy

Non believer doesn't feed the needy

Believer doesn't feed the needy for some reason or another

That said I never said it was worse, I asked how it was better than "the state" acting as an all seeing eye for the masses.

indeed you never said it was worse. i asked a counter question without answering yours. so to answer your question, the state is comprised of men. men are inevitably selfish creatures who do not perform a behaviour unless it is judged to be in their best interests given the context. lots of people have the behavioural pattern of community encoded with fuzzy logic above 0.5, that is to say the majority of the time men will probably act in ways that account for the needs of others. but the majority of the time is not an exhaustive sample space and plenty of people will all too happily give the downtrodden their moniker, unless kept in line by a set of community enforced morals. a state based legal framework is secular and does not account for any morals. conclusively, without a set of morality to keep them in check via community enforcement, a minority of the population is enabled to exploit their community.

im sure you have an opinion on that viewpoint, but im still curious as to whether you have an answer to my question.

To answer your first question (apologies should have done so in the first reply)

It isn't worse, objectively the end result is favourable even if the "driver" for it is not (to me).

I accept your counter point that at a macro level society requires a set of checks and reinforcement to bias individuals towards social good behaviour, community enforcement is obviously one and religion can be another.

But I would argue that while the state legal framework is secular it encodes some moral principles that society has agreed on such as murder, theft, harming other physically or otherwise etc.

I also hold no issue with others holding beliefs that shape their morality, I just reject the argument that people without a god cannot have innate morality or a secular morality (a common refrain).

part of me already knew you believed that, not sure why i had to push back. its a valid point that secular society does to a degree encode morality. i believe the morals encoded by religion were formed from trial by fire and are probably more likely to result in continued human existence as opposed to whatever anybody came up with in the last N years, but im sure we shall find out shortly just how well different schools of morality work out on that front. i dont think the common refrain is accurate, however it does point to the truth i alluded to (that a significant non-majority of humans will always behave deleteriously to those around them unless forced to behave differently). i do have an issue with holding beliefs that shape morality, however this is a seperate discussion and bringing up examples like 1 religion accounting for 95% of blasphemy related executions in the past 50 years is just going to get me muted, even with the intentions to demonstrate examples of beliefs shaping morality in ways i dont agree with personally.

I appreciate the measured discussion on what can be a thorny subject.

So extended clarification on the "belief shaping morality" point.

I hold no issue with it, until one person's belief driven morality impinges on another persons own autonomy, you're free to act on your own life and person based on your beliefs but using that belief system as a weapon to cause others harm or reduce their autonomy as a person is where I draw the line.

likewise. the vast majority of the time, broaching this topic is apparently an invitation to be lambasted from all sides, thank you for treating me respectfully. the next positions i see proceeding your point are either (widely) the paradox of tolerance, or (narrowly) analysing specific behavioural patterns and their wider impact on the community. im fairly certain we will agree on the former and could probably discuss at length various instantiations of the latter (eg. partner count is correlated with divorce rate, why should i be happy that everybody is encouraged to fuck everybody in the west when all i want is 1 wife and 1 family, being respectful of autonomy is nice but everybody fucking everybody actively goes against my autonomy so personally i dont feel particularly universally respectful regardless as to whether this belief was spurred religiously or secularly). however discussing various instantiations could go on forever so it is understood if the infinite loop is optimized out, preferably it could be factorized differently than 'paradox of tolerance' but i dont have the formula

>i’m starting to be more sensitive to the argument that without god, people are unable to have a strong moral foundation. Not for the people expressing creativity in how they fuck, but as a check on those in power.

If this were true, why did the medieval peasant have less rights and autonomy in society than we do now?

Balance in all things.

Also, I’m “starting to be more sensitive to” I’m not fully bought in.

It takes a special kind of issues-riddled mind in very unhealthy place, for the lack of better words, to assume that people without strong faith have less morals.

In my own experience such people are often far from objectively moral or good people themselves, and overcompensate some deep issues.

> In my own experience such people are often far from objectively moral or good people themselves, and overcompensate some deep issues.

It is very true in my experience. It is also very not true in my experience.

FWIW I’m an atheist. Curious what you mean by issues-riddled mind. What issues? What’s the unhealthy place? There is no one person I’d accuse of lacking morality through godlessness, but I do see a trend. Most particularly in the people and communities who would have previously chosen godliness and replaced it with nothing, not those who previously would have chosen godlessness.

Have you seen the rapture-obsessed gang at the White House? All proclaiming they're chosen by some god.

No true Scotsman… er. I mean Christian would ever act that way.

There has been said so much about it in the past and I always believed it to be true, as an atheist.

I like to think that one of the symptoms is politics becoming really absolutist, idealistic and cultish. You do not debate followers of a different religion. But many topics really becoming kind of a mini religions.

I don’t know for sure though, there are arguments against it too and other factors.

I think substantial amount of people really need some kind of subjective spiritual experience to their life and maybe ignoring that need breeds some maladaptive tendencies

maybe if people werent busy fucking around so creatively they could band together as families and follow agreed social practices to ensure distribution of labor and charitable action in their local communities, maybe then people would care more about their neighbours and less about consuming shit. no thanks ... everyone too busy creatively fucking around and consuming shit while ignoring reality (eg partner count directly correlates to divorce rate, fill the blanks what divorce correlates with).

maybe thats a reason that god was deleted from the western cultural lexicon, so that broken communities could be capitalized upon? no way, surely god is merely a deprecated irrelevant vestige. it's not like a fractured social fabric is a ripe substrate of raw suffering to mine profit from. surely a few hundred generations were enough for our morals to have been encoded into genetics, we don't have to bother consciously practicing morality any more. that's for the narrow minded.

<alt version of above paragraphs from ludicrous perspective of individual experiencing theocracy and its own form of propaganda>

..... this isn't intended to be aimed at anyone except those who delete god to make money, and those who use god to make money. there's plenty of negative aspects to religion. the argument is intended to focus on the sheer idiocy of expecting morality to spontaneously manifest in the absence of external motivation or any teaching of lessons already collectively learned the hard way.

I think that social justice replaced the religious preaching of values in many circles but it was well… it’s not a sort of thing that many find appealing to follow.

Concepts like "checking your privilege" or being "canceled" closely parallel religious ideas of original sin and repentance, where individuals must acknowledge their unearned moral failings to become "good".

Actions like using specific pronouns, displaying yard signs, or performing land acknowledgments function similarly to reciting a catechism; they signal allegiance to a shared belief system and reassure the in-group

Protests and social movements often evoke the communal, revival-like atmosphere of religious gatherings, providing participants with a sense of purpose and belonging.

But what’s most convincing is that many times it is hypocritical in the same way religions are. There is no room for questioning or doubt and yet the actions do not align with the performance. Which means it isn’t driven by dry results but fulfills a deeper human need.

Part of the problem is some of the most creative fuckers are those spearheading the “band together as families” movement.

Most people already have god.