The Idea of the Corpse

[Sleeper]

This is stolen directly from one of my favorite fantasy novels who stole it from Nietzsche who likely stole it from someone else.

Lets take a look at the practical application of the instantaneous loss of religious belief worldwide. For the sake of a proper inquiry let us assume that Dawkins, in his infinite wisdom, proved tomorrow that God, if he ever existed, was truly dead. By proved, let's say Dawkins found God's body beyond a shadow of a doubt.



What would happen to the world?

While Kant was a big fan of humans having some sort of inner moral compass which separated us from the lesser animals, that has always smacked me as it's own type of religious fervor, so I will dismiss that option as well.

Culture and the need for the pack are there own sort of compass which results in moral behavior, though rarely for moral reasons.



So what are we left with?

Billions of people. Let's say that again. Billions of people, agnostics included, who were, in a very significant way, only following moral behaviors, and even then only sometimes, because they believed some deity may possibly sit in judgment.



How many do you think would die in the first few minutes? How many centuries of Dark Ages until the world recovers from the mayhem?

Religion fell in Europe not so long ago when Rome fell. It took centuries for society to recover and even then, religious orders were the keepers of the light and the rock upon which society rebuilt itself.

I have more to say on this, but not right now. EDIT - I have Eedited the post to resolve the confusion I caused by using the word Atheism which has been changed to instantaneous loss of religious belief.

[rez]

So you believe religion created and upholds morality?

I wonder how early man managed to survive and succeed what with all the random murder and chaos going on...
I wonder still why all modern criminals aren't atheists? More still why the atheists I know haven't already tried to kill me?

The idea that atheists are entirely immoral is beyond primitive. The idea that modern stability is held together purely by religious belief is just funny.

[Mansa musa]

So you believe religion created and upholds morality?

I wonder how early man managed to survive and succeed what with all the random murder and chaos going on...
I wonder still why all modern criminals aren't atheists? More still why the atheists I know haven't already tried to kill me?

The idea that atheists are entirely immoral is beyond primitive. The idea that modern stability is held together purely by religious belief is just funny.

why do you people think that morality only applies to murder stealing and cheating?

[Sleeper]

why do you people think that morality only applies to murder stealing and cheating?

This is a moment to treasure and that was a cogent point.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

The Dark Ages were certainly not a time of irreligion, let's get that sorted right now. Dawkins actually has a chapter on this, have you read the God Delusion, Sleeper?

[Sleeper]

So you believe religion created and upholds morality?

I wonder how early man managed to survive and succeed what with all the random murder and chaos going on...
I wonder still why all modern criminals aren't atheists? More still why the atheists I know haven't already tried to kill me?

The idea that atheists are entirely immoral is beyond primitive. The idea that modern stability is held together purely by religious belief is just funny.

Is it? A little perspective. Religion is likely as old as man though long running organized religion is the result of the basics of society and then civilization. I need not point out that the first great cities and cultures were centered on religion and trade entirely.

How did early man survive? Barely. How old are Homo Sapiens by the most conservative estimate? If you don't know, look it up. That is tens of thousands of years of dark ages, where every waking hour was spent dedicated to the pursuit of sustenance. Every waking hour. Tens of thousands of years. That is a Dark Age to scare God into the most intractable of Atheists.

Less importantly but I am curious to ask. Atheists have clearly found a moral compass independent of Divinity, so I think it is rude of you to call them immoral, as I sure as hell didn't. I am talking about the vast majority of the global population who are not Atheists, aren't I. I am also a fan of GK Chester, and if you don't know what that means, look him up as well.

The Dark Ages were certainly not a time of irreligion, let's get that sorted right now. Dawkins actually has a chapter on this, have you read the God Delusion, Sleeper?

I have perused it but I am familiar with the majority of his arguments. Dawkins isn't actually God though I would never tell an Atheist that. Facing off with people against their personal bibles is not my cup of tea.

They were the murderers and controllers of Medieval society. And that lasted until the Thirty Years War, with religious hate, fear, destruction and persecution, so Religion is responsible for a wide and almost continuous series of massacres since Christianity was adopted by Constantine.

Yes it is. It is also responsible for:

Religion fell in Europe not so long ago when Rome fell. It took centuries for society to recover and even then, religious orders were the keepers of the light and the rock upon which society rebuilt itself.

What is your point? I would also add that human nature (avarice, lust, xenophobia) must bear some of the blame along with religion.

[rez]

Is it? A little perspective. Religion is likely as old as man though long running organized religion is the result of the basics of society and then civilization.

So what you're saying is that because religion is old it is still the staple of modern stability? You actually believe that fear of the law takes second place
to fear of God in everyone's minds?

Saying religion is "likely as old as man" is a terrible example of historical endeavour. I take it by this that you believe cave paintings to mark the dawn of man's existence?

I need not point out that the first great cities and cultured were centered on religion and trade entirely.

I think you'd have to point out exactly how the first cities were dependent on religion for their success. That would add some semblance of historicity to your claim. Saying religion was an aid to unification and obedience is certainly fine but attributing the success of man to fear of God is unbelievable.

Religion and trade are subsidary to power and the preservation of existence. Having them as paramount ideals is ridiculous.

How did early man survive? Barely.

Looking outside the window I'd say he survived with enough of a margin to become the dominant species of an entire planet. In fact he survived considerably better than his contemporaries.

How old are Homo Sapiens by the most conservative estimate? If you don't know, look it up. That is tens of thousands of years of dark ages, where every waking hour was spent dedicated to the pursuit of sustenance. Every waking hour.

Very good, tens of thousands of years of continued existence and steadily growing prosperity without the influence of religion.

Tens of thousands of years. That is a Dark Age to scare God into the most intractable of Atheists.

I find it odd that you not only consider God as an escape from fear but also that fear is the instrument that keeps him in power. No pun intended but doesn't that scare you off religion?

Less importantly but I am curious to ask. Atheists have clearly found a moral compass independent of Divinity, so I think it is rude of you to call them immoral, as I sure as hell didn't. I am talking about the vast majority of the global population who are not Atheists, aren't I.

Your hypothesis is that religion is what keeps us moral and stable. By your own logic atheists are all slobbering serial rapists rampaging from one random murder to the next.

If you read my post you will see I am ridiculing that idea and thus taking the part of the atheists.

This is why your idea falls on its face. If morality is really the sole possesion of religion why are athiests so amiable?

And If you somehow now think that atheists have their own moral compass then why on earth would you make a thread stating that the end of religion would cause an utter collapse of morality?

I am also a fan of GK Chester, and if you don't know what that means, look him up as well.

Whatever you may enjoy outside of this thread does not strenghten your argument in any way unless you delineate that particular interest in a relevant manner.

I do enjoy the style of the jibe, though I'm trying to cut back on them.

why do you people think that morality only applies to murder stealing and cheating?

No need to assume I do. But do you really expect everyone to list every application of morality? In an argument concerning morality its only prudent to use the most glaring uses.

Why do you jump to such conclusions so easily?

[Sleeper]

I think you'd have to point out exactly how the first cities were dependent on religion for their success. That would add some semblance of historicity to your claim. Saying religion was an aid to unification and obedience is certainly fine but attributing the success of man to fear of God is unbelievable.

Success of civilization, not man and any Anthro 101 course focusing on early man can give you want you want.

Religion and trade are subsidary to power and the preservation of existence. Having them as paramount ideals is ridiculous.

You are right, not realizing they are paramount to civilization is more ridiculous.

Looking outside the window I'd say he survived with enough of a margin to become the dominant species of an entire planet. In fact he survived considerably better than his contemporaries.

That he did, almost as if he believed he was special or chosen if you prefer.

Very good, tens of thousands of years of continued existence and steadily growing prosperity without the influence of religion.

You do know that the sciences and the social sciences place religion before civilization and that many of the earliest records of man are theorized to be religious expressions (paintings/statutory) by the same sciences, or are you actually, completely unfounded, putting forward the idea that religion is pretty new?

I find it odd that you not only consider God as an escape from fear but also that fear is the instrument that keeps him in power. No pun intended but doesn't that scare you off religion?

That is all you reflecting your own views onto what I said because the pragmatic element of it terrifies you, as it should. Please read it again.

A question so I do not continue to waste my time; is it possible to discuss other aspects of religion on these forums without degenerating into the childish God is Real/No he's Not shouting match?

The Idea of the Corpse is a highly enjoyable philosophical romp if people can avoid the prejudices and sensitivities of the above mentioned waste of time.

Your hypothesis is that religion is what keeps us moral and stable. By your own logic atheists are all slobbering serial rapists rampaging from one random murder to the next.

No, my hypothesis, and it isn't mine, it actually belongs to one of the most important Atheist thinkers in history, is that religion is what keeps a significant part of the religious portion of the population (the majority population) moral and stable.

Has anyone actually read my first post?

If you read my post you will see I am ridiculing that idea and thus taking the part of the atheists.

Why would you ridicule an idea which you yourself are the only one to have put forward here?

This is why your idea falls on its face. If morality is really the sole possesion of religion why are athiests so amiable?

Addressed numerous times.

And If you somehow now think that atheists have their own moral compass then why on earth would you make a thread stating that the end of religion would cause an utter collapse of morality?

Wow. Focus on my ideas, not your own misplaced perception of what religious people may sometimes think of Atheists.

Thank you.

[rez]

Success of civilization, not man and any Anthro 101 course focusing on early man can give you want you want.

Well done on the whole pointing out which cities were entirely dependent on religion thing really good show.

Civilisation cannot exist without man. If man was utterly immoral without religion he would never have survived to express the concept in the first place.

You are right, not realizing they are paramount to civilization is more ridiculous.

I never denied trade and religion have their place in civilisation. You said religion and trade were the ultimate motivators of civilisation and I pointed out that these things were motivated by higher ideals so they couldn't possibly be the ultimate focus.

Still enjoying the twisty style though.

That he did, almost as if he believed he was special or chosen if you prefer.

Glorious logic. Perhaps he just believed that helping out the group will eventually help out him.

You do know that the sciences and the social sciences place religion before civilization and that many of the earliest records of man are theorized to be religious expressions (paintings/statutory) by the same sciences, or are you actually, completely unfounded, putting forward the idea that religion is pretty new?

I made the point in the previous post that the first records of man (Paintings/statutory) do not mark the dawn of man. Perhaps you should reconsider what you believe my standpoint to be.

The idea is that man was able to progress to the point of creating religion without previously using religion. If religion created right and wrong then the men that came before religion would have been unable to survive and progress due to the sheer lack of cohesion and danger implied.

That is all you reflecting your own views onto what I said because the pragmatic element of it terrifies you, as it should.

You not only actively glorify the terror which religion brings but then signify pragmatism as a prime motivator? Surely you can see the absolute horror of a religion that terrifies its believers into submission and has belivers that think it's better to submit to survive?

A question so I do not continue to waste my time; is it possible to discuss other aspects of religion on these forums without degenerating into the childish God is Real/No he's Not shouting match?

The Idea of the Corpse is a highly enjoyable philosophical romp if people can avoid the prejudices and sensitivities of the above mentioned waste of time.

I haven't even touched on the idea of God's possible existence. I am only referring to his seemingly tyrannical behaviour. Maybe you should try to look for the arguments that are actualy there rather than the ones that let you sound off atop the intellectual high horse.

No, my hypothesis, and it isn't mine, it actually belongs to one of the most important Atheist thinkers in history, is that religion is what keeps a significant part of the religious portion of the population (the majority population) moral and stable.

Has anyone actually read my first post?

Of course. So if the religious suddenly lose their religion what do they become?

Atheists.

So how might they possibly behave? Well lets look at how Atheists behave.

Suprise! Suprise! They aren't killing each other.

Hence, and heres the super shocking twist ending, society wouldn't collapse in hours.

That really would make a great film.

Why would you ridicule an idea which you yourself are the only one to have put forward here?

You're idea supposes the loss of religion precedes the loss of morality and stablilty. Atheists prove you wrong.Hence I'm ridiculing your idea by taking your logic and applying it.

Wow. Focus on my ideas, not your own misplaced perception of what religious people may sometimes think of Atheists.

Thank you.

Funnily enough the misplaced perception of atheism seems to be one of your ideas.

Thankyou

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Religion fell in Europe not so long ago when Rome fell. It took centuries for society to recover and even then, religious orders were the keepers of the light and the rock upon which society rebuilt itself.

They were the murderers and controllers of Medieval society. And that lasted until the Thirty Years War, with religious hate, fear, destruction and persecution, so Religion is responsible for a wide and almost continuous series of massacres since Christianity was adopted by Constantine.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Is it? A little perspective. Religion is likely as old as man though long running organized religion is the result of the basics of society and then civilization. I need not point out that the first great cities and cultured were centered on religion and trade entirely.

How did early man survive? Barely. How old are Homo Sapiens by the most conservative estimate? If you don't know, look it up. That is tens of thousands of years of dark ages, where every waking hour was spent dedicated to the pursuit of sustenance. Every waking hour. Tens of thousands of years. That is a Dark Age to scare God into the most intractable of Atheists.

Less importantly but I am curious to ask. Atheists have clearly found a moral compass independent of Divinity, so I think it is rude of you to call them immoral, as I sure as hell didn't. I am talking about the vast majority of the global population who are not Atheists, aren't I. I am also a fan of GK Chester, and if you don't know what that means, look him up as well.

The majority also tends to be quite indifferent to discuss the validity of their beliefs, sometimes they won't change no matter how against the facts they are. I wouldn't trust the majority of humans for all decisions I take.

That is tens of thousands of years of dark ages, where every waking hour was spent dedicated to the pursuit of sustenance. Every waking hour. Tens of thousands of years. That is a Dark Age to scare God into the most intractable of Atheists.

The primitive man lead this life due to lack of technological advancement. As early as the Neanderthals there are evidences of religious ceremonies, so Religion and rituals didn't save them from their primitive condition.

[Sleeper]

The majority also tends to be quite indifferent to discuss the validity of their beliefs, sometimes they won't change no matter how against the facts they are. I wouldn't trust the majority of humans for all decisions I take.

Has nothing to do with the topic at hand?

The primitive man lead this life due to lack of technological advancement. As early as the Neanderthals there are evidences of religious ceremonies, so Religion and rituals didn't save them from their primitive condition.

I seem to remember other things are believed to have began at around the same time. Art springs to mind immediately.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Religion fell in Europe not so long ago when Rome fell. It took centuries for society to recover and even then, religious orders were the keepers of the light and the rock upon which society rebuilt itself.

It's funny that while they did preserve a lot of culture, they made sure only an elite could read the Classical books. And you forget that Europe suffered a lot of influence from Eastern societies back in the Middle Ages, where knowledge was far more widespread than near your local monastery.

That said, they also burnt a lot of books which disagreed with the Christian philosophy. Luckily we know some Ancient authors just by the transcripts of their books in Christian rebuttals.

[Sleeper]

And you forget that Europe suffered a lot of influence from Eastern societies back in the Middle Ages, where knowledge was far more widespread than near your local monastery.

Not to any significant degree until after the Crusades. And you seem to forget who made that possible, thus bringing in eastern knowledge, thus Enlightenment. Viewing things as a whole is rare, but worthy.

That said, they also burnt a lot of books which disagreed with the Christian philosophy. Luckily we know some Ancient authors just by the transcripts of their books in Christian rebuttals.

So even while destroying knowledge, they are still the only ones who preserved it.



Lets try to get back to the Idea of the Corpse, as much as I enjoy teaching history.

[Denny Crane!]

This is stolen directly from one of my favorite fantasy novels who stole it from Nietzsche who likely stole it from someone else.

Lets take a look at the practical application of Atheism worldwide. For the sake of a proper inquiry let us assume that Dawkins, in his infinite wisdom, proved tomorrow that God, if he ever existed, was truly dead. By proved, let's say Dawkins found God's body beyond a shadow of a doubt.



What would happen to the world?

While Kant was a big fan of humans having some sort of inner moral compass which separated us from the lesser animals, that has always smacked me as it's own type of religious fervor, so I will dismiss that option as well.

Culture and the need for the pack are there own sort of compass which results in moral behavior, though rarely for moral reasons.



So what are we left with?

Billions of people. Let's say that again. Billions of people, agnostics included, who were, in a very significant way, only following moral behaviors, and even then only sometimes, because they believed some deity may possibly sit in judgment.

Leap of judgement. You assume there are vast amounts of people only doing what they are told because of some distant parent figure threatening to spank them in the next life. Inherent uncertainty in this objective moral code has always meant that people barely followed it.

In fact morality in every society has always only been followed in so far as not following it resulted in immediate punishment by the law. That is why racism was so prevalent until 1976 in the UK. Humans are on a society wide level are ultimately immoral and ruled only by immediate fears and not by illusory fears and promises of far distant judgement.

I think acceptable behaviours are enforced by the leaders of the herd and are formed of the herd, or replace herd with tribe or pack if you wish.

Religion tags itself onto this creating laws which are for the most part ignored and takes over laws which would exist without religion and call them divinely inspired. There is no reason to believe religious people act morally for any other reasons than atheists in fact there should be evidence that in some senses they adhere more strictly to the objective moral codes that the atheist lacks allowing more leeway for the non believer in things like marriage. In fact the statistics say it is exactly the opposite and this correlation spreads further than you think. To complicated a question to draw conclusions from statistics but it certainly isn't promising.

How many do you think would die in the first few minutes? How many centuries of Dark Ages until the world recovers from the mayhem?

I think it would cause a lot of fall out in the theocracies and islamist countries around the world. America would suffer angst and a loss of direction but if anything the mayhem would not be exasperated as lessened as people start addressing why they really feel bitter instead of using Islam to justify it. Things like inequality of wealth distribution and bad rulers, or just be honest about why the want to subjugate women.

Religion fell in Europe not so long ago when Rome fell. It took centuries for society to recover and even then, religious orders were the keepers of the light and the rock upon which society rebuilt itself.

I have more to say on this, but not right now.

How did Religion fall when Rome Fell? In 410AD when Alaric sacked Rome it was done with great reluctance and the utmost respect because he was Christian and didn't want to defile temples: and admittedly because he didn't want to sack the city in the hope of getting a political settlement out of honorius as he had hoped with Stilicho.

There is indisputable evidence that the kingdoms that were formed after Rome fell were Christian.

As for Religion keeping society together I have a different theory on that. Their presence in the roman empire was not a boon to keeping the light of civilisation alive.

Their is evidence that while not the only cause they played their role in ensuring literature did not survive Romes most troubled periods. Wether you point at the burning of great libraries in which they certainly played parts. Christianity at this time in keeping with Augustines insistence that only the scriptures contained an authoritative account of the world and its phenomena and their increasing control over adminstration meant books that weren't destroyed were not copied. The advances that came through medicine from Hippocrates and Galen diminished as Christians viewed disease as punishment from God, curable only by divine intervention through prayer. Study of the human body ceased as a heretical practice defiling gods sacred creation.

In fact with the creation of Pagan kingdoms there is some evidence that the rule of law started to come into being. Where arbitrary punishment and torture was less prevalent and a person would need evidence to be punished, except where christianity held sway where trial by combat or by using torture to prove a lack of gods favour were accepted trial practice.


With education reduced to theology and even that forbidden to all but the clergy, the result was a society sunk in illiteracy for almost 1000 years. In this way the great scientific, philosophical and cultural works of the thousands of years of pre-Christian civilization were suppressed, all being ascribed to the work of pagans and therefore of devil authorship. In many places even the possession of classical works was taken to be proof of the possessor being a witch or a necromancer. More often than not such unfortunates would end up being burnt at the stake by zealous Christians.

If we look to the later years it was Charlegmane not the Church who made every religious center into a place of great learning, it was imposed not voluntary.

Rather than being diminished in the dark ages though the church was in its ascendancy leading all the way up to the gregorian reforms which gave the papacy enormous power and influence in the 11th Century.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I seem to remember other things are believed to have began at around the same time. Art springs to mind immediately.

Art comes from our mind, but it didn't take us out of our nomadic condition as much as Religion. Religion also springs from the creative imagination of man, basically in a time where there was no such thing as investigation of evidence, and man relied on legends, myths, extraordinary tales and etc... to explain natural phenomena such as lightnings. We know, of course, that these are just legends.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Not to any significant degree until after the Crusades. And you seem to forget who made that possible, thus bringing in eastern knowledge, thus Enlightenment. Viewing things as a whole is rare, but worthy.

You are wrong, of course. There was a lot of Eastern influence, basically coming from Al-Andalus, since the Arab Conquest. The Crusades did nothing but to increase an already existing process.

So even while destroying knowledge, they are still the only ones who preserved it.

No, they aren't the only ones. You forget the idea of Eastern Societies, and wasn't for the Anti-Christian (in a sense, Anti-Church and Anti-Medieval) effort of the Renaissance, many works would still be locked away from the mob, so that it could be more easily controlled.

[Sleeper]

You are wrong, of course. There was a lot of Eastern influence, basically coming from Al-Andalus, since the Arab Conquest. The Crusades did nothing but to increase an already existing process.

I take it the Arabs were not a religious group. I wonder why the Al-Andalus conquest occurred, it wasn't because of a new Judeo Christian religion of course. Again, look at things from wide rather than narrow perspectives.

Wrong is probably a word you should avoid.

Many works would still be locked away from the mob, so that it could be more easily controlled.

That is something akin to all power structures, even current secular and liberal ones.
Again, perspective.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I take it the Arabs were not a religious group. I wonder why the Al-Andalus conquest occurred, it wasn't because of a new Judeo Christian religion of course. Again, look at things from wide rather than narrow perspectives.

Wrong is probably a word you should avoid.

People are moved by Religion, and it was of course a great tool. But Religion, they made good, which I don't deny, however, Religion simply was a tool used so much for the blindness of man. Since the 4th Century, it was an almost constant and nasty pressure on human affairs that resulted in far more deaths, fear, destruction and abuse than anything else on the world. It's you who need a broader outlook: think that heresy was a crime until the XVIII century. Because of "Judeo-Christian" beliefs. Think about the sale of indulgences. Think about witch burning. Think about strife. Think St. Bartolemy's Night. Think Thirty Years War. Think manipulation of the poor and the ignorant by Judeo-Christian religious authorities for their own corrupt and greedy means. Think massacre of indians in the New World. Think of the Holy Mother Church approving black Slavery. There you have, the "wonderful" contribution of Religion to mankind, and these are solely the troubles with the Abrahamic faiths.

[Sleeper]

Rez:
I think our back and forth is a good start but I am going to refrain from responding as we seem to have come to an impasse in communication.

I promise you that if you did understand what I am saying in the way I perceive it that I at no point have made any comment on the moral essence of Atheists. Atheists play no part in the Idea of the Corpse.