Conversation

Notices

1. Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Feb-2022 05:18:15 UTC Dave Lane

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/460646/horrifying-statistics-show-abuse-complaints-laid-against-1-in-7-catholic-clergy-working-for-a-bishop I think we need to accept that theistic religion in general has less than zero claim to moral authority, and it's had at least 2k years to prove its value, which it has not done. I think it's better if we let it lapse.

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Feb-2022 05:18:12 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I'd remove the Christ-son-of-god, Holy trinity, and God parts. They're so desperately lacking in (my opinion) interesting and compelling aspects. I feel that only someone who hasn't read any relevant science fiction could believe. Anyone who has would say "pfft, hopelessly lame world creation".

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Feb-2022 05:18:13 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight the real debate is what parts of the Christian god...the 'God'...would you change.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Feb-2022 05:18:14 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight you're going to end up with a new religion, similar to Christianity yet probably worse. Whatever you call your moral authority is your god. You are either theistic or nihilistic.

     The god you worship is your choice, but we need to agree on some common qualities of him in order to get along. Christianity did this for 2k years.

     What you're critising is the system of control built around Christianity. It's not a case for dropping religion, we still need to get along!

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Feb-2022 05:18:19 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I still think you're creating a false dichotomy. It's not theism or nihilism. It's theism or rational thought (i.e. scientific method). I think nihilists are outliers in either theistic or secular societies. I reject completely the idea that "religion" (i.e. theistic religion in NZ) is necessary to society, but I realise your definition of 'religion' differs from mine. To my mind, loss of religion only has negative connotations from those currently sitting atop the power hierarchy.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Feb-2022 05:18:24 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose wisdom on human nature can be timeless. The bible just has a vanishingly low signal-to-noise ratio. I suspect most other holy books of the world's religions are similar. There are bits of each worth keeping... but who chooses *which* bits? That's where the difference between progressives and conservatives comes in, because they'll make very different choices. And we have to encourage everyone to overcome theism (we can't force it) by showing them it works.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Feb-2022 05:18:25 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I agree, a rewrite could be in order. I noticed that Dune was quite reminesent of the Bible story, as was star wars. When we create a new world religion (which will happen if we work it out), it will be carrying the story of the Bible, since it's all we have to go off (and/or other philosophy that eclipses the Bible, but remember - It's pretty old.)

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 01-Feb-2022 05:18:35 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose on this - I honestly think that society "got along" *despite* Christianity & its 'teachings' rather than *because* of it. I argue society is the stablising force, & Christian sectarianism (arguing/warring over minutiae of interpreted fiction) is the divisive one. We see that "Christian" societies' mores have evolved throughout history (with accelerations during the Enlightenment and (arguably) in the "Information Age" (albeit very inequitably). Christian dogma has held us back.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:00 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • Liam
     @liamdiprose @lightweight People have been championing their own ideas claiming they're from God ever since Paul.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:01 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight a key point is the God of the Bible is more wise than any single human alive. It's faith, but not entirely blind because the Bible has some good tips. And it's very survival proves that it knows something about human society.

     It's not self-serving to champion the Bible, it's serving society. It's better than championing your own ideas, which can be corrupted, and cannot be held to account.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:04 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose pastors, of course, claim the mantle of god's will, and to speak the word of god as 'his messenger'. Therein lies the danger... and the self-serving lies. I'd prefer politicians, as at least they don't claim that sort of authority (unless they're theocrats).

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:05 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight they're both community leaders, they both fight for what they claim is right. In fact, it probably is the same job, just from different times in history.

     Both appeal to power, and both can be corrupted by it.

     A pastor appeals to God, but the politician appeals to popularity. If they work in society's interest, I think they appeal to popularity though appealing to God. But it's better to play the social game to win votes, apparently.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:09 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight a politition and a pastor are about as opposite as you can get, in my mind. A pastor does not have a glamorous life, the good ones act selflessly, that makes them trustworthy.

     I'm still not sure if the state should be in control of our religion. Our morals don't come down to a vote, they should be widely accepted. We can't live with morals we can't accept, they need to make sense.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:09 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I dunno - the route from pastor to politician is a very very well trodden one...

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:13 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I'd rather it controlled by democratically elected gov't than religious groups... I agree, though, that education systems, to be truly useful, must teach its learners enough to overthrow it :)

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:14 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight education is like indocintination for the state religion. With everyone onboard with it, faith in the facts and collective goals, people can start to work together.

     What I'm worried by is that it's controlled by the government. Do we really want politicians to define the rules of our religion?

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:16 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose what we need before common goals will be possible is a higher floor of education. Because without that, people will not be able to deal with many of the concepts required to achieve the level of civic participation and altruism required to make the world better. That's why I'm focused on education.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:17 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight imo, the only way society can be broken is if people don't work together, implying some disagreement on what should be done. If we want society to work together, we need to trust each other and align our goals.

     This means rejecting false gods like money (capitalism and consumerism), power, and to some extent, pleasure.

     We need a replacement for these gods with something that we all want all people to be. Environmental, loving, self-sacrificial, etc.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:18 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose my world view stems, in part, from the hypocrisy I saw, around age 6, in religion long before I had any belief... indoctrination failed on me pretty comprehensively, I think. I don't see that Christianity is responsible for the best aspects of our otherwise broken societies. My position is that Christianity has consistently held back many of the best aspects of society (dominant religion is always a conservative force) & it has been used to justify much of its terminal brokenness.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:19 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I like that song too. I think a common religion is necessary for world peace. I think they develop over time, getting better and better. This is what Christianity is. I like to think I've transcended my childish view of Christianity. It's more of a reference now than the lens I see the world through.

     I'm open to other ways of thinking as well, but it's not easy to tell which way of thinking is the best. What does your world stem from?

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:21 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose one thing is abundantly clear: any society that draws its inspiration from the Christian bible will a) be full of contradictions, and b) will never be reconcilable with any societies based on any of the world's other (many) major religions. The conflicts will continue to be fundamental - they will always be chalk and cheese no matter how much common ground the societies have. I reckon John Lennon was onto something in Imagine.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:22 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I think people who are raised & indoctrinated with the bible as the instruction manual for living have a horribly difficult time letting it go. Part of my mission in life is to help some over that (absurdly massive) hump. I find it bizarre that anyone has any fealty to a particular book. Or that they think, just because it's been a fixation for so many people (who actively removed people without that fixation for most of its history), it's somehow valuable or even broadly valid.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:23 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight Abraham trusted God when he asked him to sacrifice his only son, but once God saw that Abraham was really going to do it, he stopped him. Abraham trusted God over his own feelings and thoughts, over the life of his only son. God told Abraham that Issac was going to have children, so trusted Issac would have come back to life...but it's still regarding faith over evidence, so I have to say I disagree with that part of the Bible then, or at least that interpretation.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:24 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose regarding faith over evidence, I'm thinking of (Genesis 22, I believe) the story of Abraham and Isaac, one of the few vague memories I have of the horrors of Sunday school as a kid.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:25 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I don't think the Bible prizes faith over evidence:

     “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, The Lord has made both of them.” (Pro 20:12, NASB)

     “Differing weights are an abomination to the Lord, And a false scale is not good.” (Pro 20:23, NASB)

     The scientific method is for learning about Gods creation, but science will never be able to touch God, since he exists outside our dimensions. You might think it stupid, but it's important when considering what we should do

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:26 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose No, we never discussed it. I just know that the scientific process prizes characteristics that Christianity explicitly condemns (e.g. believing evidence over faith) and it's difficult to reconcile what has been learned about reality via the scientific method that pushes the world of the bible and Christian god ever further into the margins.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:27 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight the fact good ideas were copied from earlier, also successful, societies is my point. The Bible is a refined document on the best ways for a society to live. I would only consult it with questions that can't be answered with science.

     Did you and your prof. disagree on anything in particular?, or was it just taxing to convert his world view to yours?

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:29 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight our understanding of the world needs to line up, otherwise other people's "rational" views won't line up with your idea of rational.

     Christianity is Egalitarian. 'Love thy neighbour' and 'treat others like you want to be treated' come from the Bible.

     Do you think a 'scientific christian' could have a rational point of view?

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:29 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose The "golden rule" is common in lots of other (pre-Christian) religions. It's a society thing (although, I've learned, it's also not necessarily egalitarian)... I had at least one very devout Christian physics prof. He is (was?) a good guy and a good teacher, but I didn't envy him the enormous cognitive dissonance he had to contend with.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:31 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose don't get me wrong - we can never "legislate" belief. All we can do is provide opportunities for education on an egalitarian basis and hope that with a greater understanding of the world, more mature and rational views will prevail.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:32 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I think gods emerge as a way for some individuals to disempower others. Theistic religions are political gaming from primitive times and in (even today) relatively uneducated societies. I don't think the gods they worship are a superset of ideals, they're one set of ideas that have by various means (some honourable, most not) have buried alternative views and those holding them... To me, they're tools of oppression and exploitation. So, quite a different take.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:33 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I think our view of the universe should be a personal choice. 1) We don't have any evidence either way, and 2), I believe what we choose to think has a big impact on what we do.

     I think God and other theistic inventions naturally arise when societies work together. Every society builds around a set of ideals. If the society values peace, those ideals should be the image of a good person, ideally the ultimate person.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:34 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose when I say 'unconscious', I mean without agency. Non-sentient. Like the universe, so far as we can tell. But unlike human theistic inventions.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:35 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight balance is the focus of Tao Te Ching, or "the way". I like it.

     healthy, unconscious ecosphere. It sounds like a brainwashed place. Is this in the future when we forget conflict exists?

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:36 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose if you insist on the idea of a 'divine', (which I think is unnecessarily limiting and carries lots of unhelpful baggage), let it be 'gaia' and all the ecosystems that exist in fine balance, which we, with our Christian manifest destiny, have utterly (perhaps terminally) perturbed. Restoring balance should be our 'religion'. And it doesn't need a god other than a healthy (but unconscious) ecosphere.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:37 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I'm also not into consumerism or excessive capitalism. These forces are what our religion needs to face. How can we make someone feel happier for having less? We need them to feel loved by a divine that blesses them for saving the environment. I guess this could be money...

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Thursday, 03-Feb-2022 06:05:38 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight not into dogma. Science is Godly.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Saturday, 05-Feb-2022 04:08:15 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose culture creates pressure on religion in a society, and forces it to liberalise (or at least it has done so since the Dark Ages)... for example, it was societies, not religion, that ended freedom in most of the world, achieved a semblance of racial equity (at least on paper), and even gender and sexual preference equity. Religion continues to be the force against all those good developments.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Saturday, 05-Feb-2022 04:08:16 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose What you're convolving in your term religion, I call culture + religion. Culture usually exists outside of religion and is the way people en mass behave, implicitly/instinctively accepting or reject aspects of the prevalent religion (and, more recently, the lack of religion). In my opinion, people have been behaving better without religion than with it. I think most statistical metrics would support my assertion.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Saturday, 05-Feb-2022 04:08:18 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I am trying to make myself as clear as possible so you can dismiss my ideas clearly. I feel like I'm cheating a little bit because I feel I'm just naming basic natural phenomena that arise in social structures.

     I think we fundimentally agree (be good), you just don't like the terms I'm using.

     From my point of view, you're dismissing religion in favour of religion. Can you see the parallels between your world view and what Christianity has been trying to do?

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Saturday, 05-Feb-2022 04:08:19 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose At this point, my thinking is that you're committed to a comforting delusion. The majority of people on earth would agree (they're not Christians and don't believe in your God). I've developed a deep revulsion to theistic religion in general & consider it a bug in our wetware that can be overcome by general education & observation of the universe. You might've found privilege & belonging from a Christian upbringing, but I only saw oppression of the outliers by the devout majority.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Saturday, 05-Feb-2022 04:08:20 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight Theism naturally arises from our commonly agreed rules and goals. Goals paint our ideal future, where we all act in a certain way (or number of ways). These commonly-agreed, ideal ways to act become gods. One set of 'good' features arise from all the gods, giving the god of god's: God.

     If I had to choose a god, it would be God.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Saturday, 05-Feb-2022 04:08:21 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I disagree with your definition of 'religion'. The 'collective agreement to rules and goals' is... just that. Religion involves the 'spiritual' component, and, typically, theistic belief (i.e. blind faith). They're not interchangeable, and yes, I deride religion while being quite happy with commonly agreed rules and goals.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Saturday, 05-Feb-2022 04:08:21 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I'm conflating the terms because I think they are the same. They're both answer the same question, Christianity is just more advanced and abstracted.

     Spirituality is required for us to see past our physical features. A spirit can be thought of as the force that inspires a persons actions.

     1/2

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Saturday, 05-Feb-2022 04:08:22 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight you can frame religion as oppression, or as the collective agreement to rules and goals. Subjugation is what we need in order to stop evil, like pollution and excessive consumption.

     Evil will always exist so long as we have free will. We need to disable dissenters that act out of self interest, and not for the common good. Therefore, we need agreeable definitions of common good and evil, so we can enforce them on everyone.

     Without good, evil takes advantage.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Saturday, 05-Feb-2022 04:08:23 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose If one is part of the Christian establishment that has social and (in many cases, political) power, e.g. in the US, the Bible is constantly used for self-interest. I disagree that the Bible's survival justifies your high esteem for it. I'd say it's proven an effective means for subjugating populations and eliminating dissenters since Rome adopted it as their official religion. That doesn't make it right or even valid.

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Saturday, 05-Feb-2022 05:15:52 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • Liam
     @liamdiprose @lightweight It's an interesting hypothesis, but atheists haven't been shown to be less moral than theists. Rather the other way around.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Saturday, 05-Feb-2022 05:15:53 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I disagree that people are acting better without religion. With no unified direction, our societies are rudderless. With no unified direction, we are free to choose our own aims, including evil ones. When we choose different aims, our societies split and we collect around our new gods: Have vs have-not, red vs blue, black vs white.

     None of these address the real evil in this world. We need cultures to work together, to agree on what's good and who's evil.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Saturday, 05-Feb-2022 09:16:57 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I often think that the best "Christians" I know (if we assume what I consider to be the best, most illuminated, New Testament ideals that can be attributed to minorities in *some* Christian groups) aren't actually Christians at all. Many of them have no faith, and yet they offer an example in their lives that far exceeds the grace and kindness that many Christians exhibit...

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 06-Feb-2022 02:07:22 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅
     • Liam

     @liamdiprose @clacke Atheist, by definition, need no god. They exist (and based on all societal studies are more morally consistent and "better Christians" than self-proclaimed Christians.

     Your assertion that "when morals are collected up, you describe god", is your personal conceit. It's a unsupported and, from my perspective, entirely false, conclusion and assertion.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Sunday, 06-Feb-2022 02:07:23 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     @clacke morals are subjective, which makes them hard to find and agree to. When you say "less moral", that is only meaningful from your perspective, not a truth.

     To be a moral person, you need to know the morals of your society (the people that judge you).

     Morals are personified. When collected up, you describe a god.

     If atheists want to keep being moral relative to each other and society, they will need a god to keep them aligned.

     @lightweight

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Sunday, 06-Feb-2022 11:26:21 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • Liam
     @liamdiprose @lightweight So you just define atheism out of existence by defining any kind of preference about a good life as theism.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Sunday, 06-Feb-2022 11:26:22 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight My view is that we always worship a god, whether we are aware of it or not.

     Anyone that wants to improve themselves has a number of qualities they want to obtain. They imagine their future self with these qualities. They imagine an image of their god.

     Anyone that wants to survive and have a prosperous life has a number of dangers that they look out for. Addictions and pleasure seeking are things they should hate. These are the things their god hates (sin).

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 06-Feb-2022 11:26:24 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I understand that what I'm saying to you doesn't make sense to you, because to you "good" and the Christian god are synonymous, but for many of us, that's not the case, and any social leader needs to accept that, even if they can't understand it.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 06-Feb-2022 11:26:26 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose Here's the thing: one way you can completely guarantee that I (and many of my fellow non-believers, not to mention the many others who adhere to non-Christian religions) will reject any "new social order" you advocate is for it to have *any* association with Christianity. Many of us *loath* Christianity and the effect it's had on our societies for past two millennia. What you see as good, we see as the source of much of what is bad. We won't rally behind leaders who don't get that.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Sunday, 06-Feb-2022 11:26:27 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I agree that our systems need to hear criticism.

     Questioning the norm will always be a social taboo because you're messing with the stability of society. People will respond to it like an attack. The question is what should our norm be?

     My answer is "something rooted in Christianity".

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 06-Feb-2022 11:26:28 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose the deprecation of religion has now made it safe enough for people who've long dealt with unjust treatment from past eras where questioning religion was a social taboo to challenge those past wrongs. It's been rotten to the core all along.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 06-Feb-2022 11:26:29 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I think I almost entirely disagree with your perspective on this. I think that the increasing loss of religion has both eased the system prejudice against various minorities in society, and provided a useful contrast to the part of the society that still identifies itself as "Christian". We see the depravity of it emerging every day with various investigations around the world into child abuse, with indigenous children as frequent victims.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Sunday, 06-Feb-2022 11:26:50 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I think that's a much better question - I think there are lots of non-faith-dependent strands that can help bind a society together.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Sunday, 06-Feb-2022 11:26:51 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight we need something to keep us bound. Without a collective identity, we are going to fall into tribalism. That might be ok, so long as we follow a minimal set of guidelines that keep conflict from happening.

     What are those guidelines?, and will they allow us to collaborate enough in order to face our emergencies?

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Monday, 07-Feb-2022 05:54:25 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅
     • Liam

     @liamdiprose @clacke and, again, I reject that assertion of god because that's neither what I nor, in my experience, most people mean by god. Why not just call your god your 'ideals' and be done with it. Am I right in my suspicion that you're a life-long Christian who has had the benefit of education and is seeking to rationalise his faith? That's what it sounds like to me.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Monday, 07-Feb-2022 05:54:26 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     @clacke @lightweight I think God is an abstract concept, so entirely exists as an idea. I call the ideals you align yourself with your god.

     Theism, to me, means to consciously construct a god that has properties you admire, so you become more like that god.

     Naïvely, we choose gods that our bodies find, like pleasure or wealth. But overriding that impulse with the God of goodness sets us free.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Monday, 07-Feb-2022 05:54:35 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅
     • Liam

     @liamdiprose @clacke to me, what you're calling theism I simply call idealism. No controversy about blind faith, no need for a sky father/mother. Why do you insist on calling that a god? The whole god concept is entirely unnecessary in what you're espousing. In my opinion, calling it 'god' cheapens it. To me, being idealistic, and living up to those ideals, is what's required to be a good person who works to improve society and the lot of other individuals.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Monday, 07-Feb-2022 08:56:59 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I don't think there's such thing as heaven except as a hypothetical. And a superficial one, at that, created by a mind that needs a break.

     I've spent a lot of time reading ideas of 'heaven' and invariably upon further consideration, they look a whole lot more like hell...

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Monday, 07-Feb-2022 08:57:00 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I think I agree, being 50/50 agnostic isn't useful. To have meaning, we need to consider what this universe might be for, and/or what we can make it into.

     Heaven must be our future for anything to be worth doing.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Monday, 07-Feb-2022 08:57:01 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I find the agnostic idea of "not knowing" to be acceptable for one who's young and inexperience in life, but it feels like a cop-out for those who're older. Feels to me like someone who just hasn't done any 'soul searching', is perennially indecisive :) , or is scared to 'come out' as a non-believer to their religious family.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Monday, 07-Feb-2022 08:57:02 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight I agree that religion is about control and subjection. Any society requires a certain amount of them to work. Our society should use a religion that doesn't get in people's way, but still allows us to get along to solve problems.

     We can't know what happens after death, but thinking there is an afterlife is one way to remove the fear of death.

     I'm personally happy with the Agnostic's "?" answer.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Monday, 07-Feb-2022 08:57:03 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose I'm afraid I consider that a naive position. Religion is *always* about control and subjugation. In order to be cost-effective, it uses the "faith as a virtue" and "afterlife payment" as the carrot which never comes due for those benefiting from the power.A cult (pejorative) is a proto-religion that has the potential to topple the currently dominant religious order and threatens its power base. Initially they use derision to discourage mass adoption.

   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Monday, 07-Feb-2022 08:57:04 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     @lightweight the point of Christianity isn't to give the church power, it's harmony: Everyone aspiring to be like Jesus.

     By the way, Jesus criticised the Pharisees, calling them corrupt, like you have.

     I think a big part of overcoming the oppressed/oppressor view is spirituality. Seeing people for the content of their character and not their physical appearance.

     Evil exists everywhere temptation does. I'll join you in fighting it, but first we need to define what evil is.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 08-Feb-2022 20:59:37 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Liam

     @liamdiprose that's just one reason why I think National's new leader, Luxon, is already a dead duck. Aotearoa NZ society's "worm has turned". And I fervently hope that the 'conservative' (code word for "Christian") view point becomes socially unacceptable, like smoking cigarettes.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 08-Feb-2022 20:59:37 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅
     • Liam

     @liamdiprose @clacke I think many animals are better than we are in many ways... I don't think we differ only in degree, not in some fundamental way... I don't really see 'spirituality' as a special thing... it's just an outgrowth of self-awareness and our incomplete understanding of the world around us. I think animals can experience that same wonder.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 08-Feb-2022 20:59:38 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     @lightweight @clacke Christian until I was 17, became Atheist during my uni years.

     Now I'm 24 and I'm trying to build my character. My grandad told me that he believes in God with all his heart. I've been playing God's advocate to see if I can rationalise his position here.

     I think spirituality is correct thinking. Without it, we are animals. Ideals guide spirits to who they want to be. I think this is why Christians worship God, the ideal being.

   • Dave Lane (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 08-Feb-2022 21:00:13 UTC Dave Lane

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅
     • Liam

     @liamdiprose @clacke keep in mind, we only consider a few of the 10 commandments valid any more. I certainly don't consider them rules for my life - or, those that I adhere to, I didn't hear about them as commandments before I chose to adhere.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Liam (liamdiprose@mastodon.nz)'s status on Tuesday, 08-Feb-2022 21:00:14 UTC Liam

     in reply to

     • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     @lightweight @clacke I will accept idealistic. The Bible refers to gods liberally, as anything that a society values most. When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai, his people were worshipping a golden calf, a symbol for material wealth. Moses later corrected this by introducing the 10 commandments, the first laws. They introduced a god based on ideals rather than status.