Conversation

Notices

1. Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 08:42:33 UTC Dave Lane

   This is nice to verify, but it shouldn't surprise anyone. Religion is largely unrelated to moral, civil behaviour.
   https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/16/ending-religion-lessons-in-schols-leads-to-overall-decline-in-belief-not-morals

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 08:42:23 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I think it's a mistake to think that religion has ever reflected our values or our direction. It has, at best, followed very very slowly. I'd argue it only had relevance when we were desperately ignorant of the world in which we exist. It is increasingly at odds with everything we're learning about the world, and its credibility among the incredulous drops with every new verified scientific discovery. I don't think religion offers society anything of real value.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 08:42:31 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight Religion is related to what we value as a collective. If we drop the religion that got us here, I'm afraid that we have a long way to fall. How can we tell what we should value other than from the accumilated learning of the past?

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 13:17:22 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I don't agree that the Bible offers anything of value. I think it's just one of millions of other philosophical/moral/ethical treatises, and it's extraordinarily inconsistent and self-contradictory as well. I'd suggest that many of the others are written by more thoughtful, insightful, and coherent people. Also, I think that society leads human morals which in turn are eventually (but very reluctantly) adopted by religions. They're the laggard, not the leader.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 13:17:23 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight The Bible is showing its age and perhaps some passages could be retired. But I don't think the message is at odds with Science. Science tells us where we are, but doesn't provide any guidance as to how we should grow. Picture a tree, science can tell us where the tree is, but religion is the sun that guides its growth.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 13:17:40 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight The Bible is really really old, copied from stories even older. The refinement of time those stories went through is much more insightful than one mind, and tell us more about what proporous societies valued as they grew to what we have today. If you need something extremely reliable, like a society, would you pick the newest tech, or the laggard tech?

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 13:54:57 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • Liam
     @liamdiprose The only way to get direction from the Bible is to read it selectively and subjectively. You bring your existing values, also known as guidance by the Holy Ghost, and you interpret.
     
     Matching parts form the essence and the concrete message of the Bible. Contradicting parts are symbolic or part of a specific story for historical illustration rather than direct philosophical guidance.
     
     @lightweight
   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 13:54:59 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I'm afraid I have zero admiration or sentimental attachment to the Bible. I consider it to be largely noise, its internal contradictions plus the calculated edits (removing many/most of its narratives) by past despots for their own benefits rendering it entirely untrustworthy. I think it's not worth reading except as an anachronistic curiosity. It's *definitely* nothing to base a society on.

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 13:55:28 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • Liam
     We can see that from the 3000 denominations that disagree on everything. Some of them do very nice things, provide community and a sense of belonging, and improve society. Some of them ruin society and harm people.
     
     They all think the reason they do it is because they're good Christians and have "Christian values".
     
     @lightweight @liamdiprose
   • valhalla (valhalla@social.gl-como.it)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 16:42:05 UTC valhalla

     in reply to

     • Liam
     @lightweight @liamdiprose Religion is also a very personal thing, and teaching it at school has a high risk of causing discrimination and triggering issues with peer pressure that are probably not helpful for one's faith.
     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 16:43:16 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight My definition for religion is more general than the traditional ones. Humans need to have meaning/values and will organise around them. It's not whether religion is good or bad, but a choice of which one (or "ones" - provided they are compatible).

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 16:45:59 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • Liam
     @liamdiprose @lightweight > A good question is how do we engineer a religion that is good and incorruptible?
     
     There's a book for that. I haven't read it.
     
     www.alaindebotton.com/religion…
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 16:46:00 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight Yes, I hate the control that had as well. It's a defilement of what is supposed to be good and true. It happens, no matter what religion. Socialism, Capitalism. A good question is how do we engineer a religion that is good and incorruptible?

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 16:46:03 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose to clarify - I think religion is used by small numbers of people to control large numbers. In some cases, their exploitation of the masses is unintentional, but I think generally, those who "control" a religion (e.g. L Ron Hubbard) are doing it for their own power/gain.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 18-Jan-2022 16:46:04 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I tend to think that religion is organised for the purpose of controlling large numbers of people. Really insightful, dedicated thinkers tend to eschew religions, although historically, they were forced by religious theocracies & general religious prejudice to claim affiliation to the prevalent religion of the day where ever they were. I personally have no inherent respect for religion, nor do I think it particularly useful or necessary for 'social direction' or cultural coherence.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:21 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose again, I see the signal-to-noise ratio in the Bible being far too low to be worth bothering with. There are many far better statements of ethic and social mores. The fixation with the Bible has always baffled me. I consider it to be catastrophically overrated as a source for anything other than mixed messages, obsolete recommendations and desperately boring lists and soap opera-esque escapades of people about whose lineages and transgressions I couldn't possibly care less.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:22 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight those earlier stories are even more interesting than the Bible. Although, they were probably simplified when copied to convey the meaning better, and a collection of stories put together is more powerful than each story by itself.

     The clichés aren't interesting, but far from irrelevant. The stories aren't meant to entertain, they're definitions for happenings in everyday life: temptation, sin, sacrifice, resentment, leadership. They help us discuss them.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:24 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I didn't read them as fact, but I also recognised that they held no special lyrical or sentimental appeal to me (as they seem to for many people). I found it colourless. The archetypes they portray seem fairly universal, and I get the impression in most cases there are other renditions that pre-date those in the Bible.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:25 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I disagree. A good portion of the Bible is dedicated to how Jesus responds to situations, Paul's writing to churches in immoral cities. King Solomon's proverbs are pretty awesome. Genesis has some deeply architypical stories.

     If you read them like fact, you're going to miss the point.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:26 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose as many smart, thoughtful people have said, the best way to create an atheist (those who have *no* belief in god, not a belief there is no god, which is entirely different, i.e. antitheism), is to force someone to read the Bible, Torah, or Quran. What's abundantly clear is that few 'true believers' have read more than a few snippets of the book they claim to live by.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:27 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I always found fairy tales and mythologies far more compelling than the Bible. I've also read thousands of books in the SciFi genre that are vastly more interesting and better written (more poetic and lyrical!) and containing far more wisdom than the Bible. I actually find it staggering that anyone gives the Bible any time whatsoever. I'd prefer to watch paint dry.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:28 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight lots of the Bible is fiction, but it's to convey a deeper meaning, like analogies.

     Your personal philosophy needs to line up with others in order for them to think you are a good person. I believe you fight for the right cause. We can call it a shared philosophy instead of religion, but I'm saying that a not a few of our ideas came from the Christian west way of thinking.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:32 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose a personal philosophy is not a religion. Religion is, by my definition, a shared (vaguely) coherent fiction. It might include some elements or templates for a personal philosophy, but all of those I've seen are riddled with irreconcilable contradictions. I'd just like to leave the world a better place than I found it. There's no need for an afterlife and there's no need for a 'prime creator'. There's no meaning of life other than what each of us, individually, chooses it to be.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:33 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight You claim to only trust science, yet you have found purpose, so I know you have a set of values. These are what I would call your religion. Those values aren't derived scientifically, they were handed down to you and you picked them up.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:34 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight What about this: trust the evidence when we have it, and apply religion to the parts of life that no evidence is possible. Questions like "what should my purpose be" cannot be answered by science. You need to choose some values in order to answer that. If you want to be the best person possible, you choose the best values. The Bible is an ongoing effort to collect these values of goodness.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:36 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose As I see it, religion not only 'opens the door to lying to yourself', it actually elevates lying to yourself (faith over evidence) to be the highest virtue. When, as I've said previously, it should be seen to be a deep character flaw.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:37 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I understand, religion opens the door to lying to yourself, which means people are likely to ignore anything that isn't beneficial to them. If we all just accepted the facts we would be able to do something about the climate.

     I am in favour of pushing Environmentalism into our common ground.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:38 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose there're some major downsides to 'blissful ignorance' which seems to be the modus operandi of religious adherence in many parts of the world. For example, it's led us to the place we are today where 'bad news' (like the inevitability of catastrophic climate change) is unacceptable in the US these days. See "Don't Look Up'.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:41 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I think I agree with you on the Bible, it's like a spin on life that makes it go down easy. We don't actually know if they are the answers, so why would you call the opposite spin truth? Is it not better to be happy?

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:43 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose seems to me that the antidote to fear is knowledge, not faith. I think that much of the Bible is designed to champion comforting lies over (often) difficult truths. An ignorant, docile flock is easier to shepherd than an inquisitive and clever one. But such a flock doesn't improve its lot or that of its fellows.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:48 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight Contradictions *regarding faith*. There are certainly contractions elsewhere.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:50 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I agree, but I can't find any contradictions. Faith is the antidote to fear. I guess lots of childhood stories say the same thing.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:51 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose well, the Bible says a lot of stuff, much of contradicted elsewhere (and who knows what the books that were edited out contain?). I wouldn't look to it for any real wisdom. Sure it might be food for thought, just like any other written word, but it's the work of people, not divine inspiration. There are far more interesting and useful philosophies out there. The only things I have tentative faith in are things that can be verified, e.g. faith in individuals to do 'the right thing'.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:52 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight The Bible says the reason for faith is rightousness, acting strong, etc. I guess our society doesn't really require faith in God as such. I suppose you've got faith in something though?

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:53 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose sure, sounds good... so long as it's not masquerading as a religion and has no faith component. I'm keen to see evidence and well formed (testable) hypothesis on what 'better" might look like. Then I'd be all over that.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:54 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight Yes, so on this common ground we can form a society. But if we want to improve it, we need to envision a better version of it, together. Common ideals that we can aim towards as a society. Do you see where I'm going?

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:55 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose they're an attribute of most religions and most secular societies, too. I think ascribing them to religion (or calling them that) is putting the cart before the horse... But ok, we can agree they're common ground :)

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:56 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I think we agree then: we don't want those 3 commandments broken. This would be our common ground. I'm calling it religion because they form the roots for Christianity and Islam.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:57 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose er, no. Most people believe those 3 things (3/10ths of the Commandments) are valid regardless of their religion, or lack there of. I consider myself an exemplar of those virtues, and I couldn't be less pious. In the past (what we now refer to as the Dark Ages), people didn't all believe the same thing. They just said they did so that they didn't get stuck in an iron maiden, or burnt at the stake, or stoned, or merely shunned and ostracised. Belief is a slippery thing.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:58 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight Everyone used to believe the same thing, but now we are free to choose. So we don't have the guarantee that everyone agrees that murder, stealing, or adultery is wrong. Either we all keep believing in those values, or we see the breakdown of society.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:03:59 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose the problem I see with what you've said is that you're implicitly ascribing the 'polarisation, lack of trust, and inability to understand one another' to the decline in religious adherence. I'd say it's the *long term effect of religious adherence and ever increasing balkanisation based on centuries of fighting over pointless eschatological nuances that all made up anyway. I think we can only make forward progress by recognising the grand pointlessness of religion in general.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:00 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I absolutely agree with Environmentalism. "Go forth and multiply" could use a addendum now.

     Big religions show what we can all agree to, but maybe their time has come. I think we are already seeing what happens when a society drops its religion: increased polarization, lack of trust and respect for one another, inability to even understand one another. I don't see how it ends, or rather I don't want to think about it.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:01 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I'm not sure. I certainly reject the idea that the "big" religions of the world hold any useful answers. They, at best, muddy the waters. At worst, they're the cause for many (most) of our woes. They're a massive distraction from what's real and useful in this time of existential threat, where we urgently need to respond to what we (using religion as a justification for much of it) have created: an entirely unsustainable existence.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:02 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I think you have another framing for society and how it grows. I'm optimistic that it draws a parallel with how I see it though...?

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:03 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight There's mostly likely an "it", at least. Do you subscribe to string theory or something like that?

     I choose "him", because we are born to become our fathers.

     God is huge, but he is framed as a personal friend who has introduced himself to you. This is about feeling spiritually connected to the universe, not about society building, imo.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:04 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I just don't there there's any "Him" or "Her" or a"It". There's no need for agency or personification. Humanity and the world we live in with all its creatures and mysteries is plenty. Where I feel nameless awe, others ascribe it to "God". I think that's an invalid leap.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:06 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight Yes, but not unnecessary. He's the direction that we want to grow in. What he is for you is different than what he is for me. Although, since we're both open-source advocates, I really think we can agree on a lot of his features.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:07 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose wow, I think then, that you and I have entirely different world-views (and, I guess, impressions of what constitutes reality)... I think this concept you're referring to as "God" is not a thing. Like, it's entirely made up and an unnecessary (and often extremely destructive) bug in many human brains.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:08 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I picture society as a tree, and God as the sun that guides its growth. We, the tree, learn goodness by testing and remember goodness by writing it down. If we can't trust what is written down, the tree shrinks, falls away from God, possibly dies.

     This God is not man made, he's part of the spiritual framing of the world. He is who our spirits want to be, personally.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:09 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose we don't know if a certain moral or ethic is good, except by testing it. The same as with all human cultural. Gods are all invented by people to, in effect, win arguments. All 'their' morals and ethics are the inventions of people in any case. The idea of God is great but painfully simplistic and uncompelling for those not indoctrinated into it, and/or with a little imagination or analytical nous.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:10 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight So religion for you is strictly the worship of God. Ok.

     Gods come in many forms: Money, social power, technology; pretty much anything you can dedicate your life to. The reason people worship "the one true God who is in heaven" is because it sets them free of the man-made Gods, which are traps and unreliable. The true God is maximally Good, and abstract beyond our understanding - by definition. Even "concept" falls short.

     How do we know if a certain moral or ethic is good?

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:11 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose ok, I guess then that we have different definitions of 'religion'. For me, in general, religion means 'theism" (yes, there're notable exceptions, but that's what most people imply)... which implies blind faith. That's where I diverge (and withhold respect) from the idea of religion. There are cultures, social mores, morals, ethics, and those have nothing to do with religion inherently, although some people think religion determines them. I think it's the other way around.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:12 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight What I'm saying is that these shared values *is* the religion - albeit a very basic one. Society and religion go hand in hand. Without a religion, you have no society.

     I very much agree that our values should be based off rational thought and use science where we can. But there are some questions that science can't answer, and they are very hard to answer.

     I believe we need to rely on the documented past in order to know what works for us. Ages of trial and error.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:13 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose Yes, and nearly all societies, regardless of prevalent religion (or non), has arrived at those rules independently. As such, it's rational to suggest that those rules are sensible without needing to resort to religion. On the contrary, when societies reject those values, it's generally because of/justified by their religion.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:14 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight When I brought up the 10, I was really thinking of the don't kill, don't steal, and don't commit adultery. They are (some of) the minimum laws for a society to perpetuate. They're rational, but there is no scientific method that can tell you that life is better than death, ownership and stable marriage are good things, because science has no bias by design. These are values that we all must agree to together.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:15 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I agree that the smaller the better, but none just can't exist. If we want a society that gets along, we need at least the 10 commandments. You can't scientifically derive them, you need to choose and agree on some values. Religion is just software for the mind, since even open source is controlled by someone. (And a "fork" in this case means war)

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:15 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose Look carefully at the 10 commandments. How many are even relevant today? Societies have arrived at the crucial substance of the commandments independently in every case. The Bible is nothing special - and it clouds the waters at every turn with irrelevancies. As I see it, the only ones who benefit from religion are those who are completely at odds with society, and are unable to think rationally. That is, I hope, a very small (and shrinking) segment of society.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 20-Jan-2022 01:04:16 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose we don't. We recognise that religion is entirely unnecessary. Government is bad enough but at least it can, in theory, be based on scientific methods and evidence. It's clear that religion is not required for a "good" society (in fact, the evidence is clear: religion is contra-indicated on that score!). Without religion, people can be 'spiritual' if they want, but humanity has definitely proven itself incapable of handling religion. It's 'proprietary software for the mind'.