https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13924801/Britain-atheist-God-parents-religious-beliefs.html

Britain is entering its first 'atheist age': Non-believers
now outnumber those who believe in God - as parents fail
to pass their religious beliefs on to their children,
study finds

.. . .

Good for a more objective view of reality.

Bad for the ethics/morality needed to keep
large societies cohesive.

On 2024-10-05, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13924801/Britain-atheist-God-parents-religious-beliefs.html
> Britain is entering its first 'atheist age': Non-believers
> now outnumber those who believe in God - as parents fail
> to pass their religious beliefs on to their children,
> study finds
>
> Good for a more objective view of reality.
> Bad for the ethics/morality needed to keep
> large societies cohesive.

Quoting a talk by Marie Castle:

"There are basically three kinds of morality. There's civic morality, and
religious morality, and atheist morality. Civic morality consists of all these
cultural behaviors that hold a group together, like: don’t kill, and don’t
steal, don’t bear false witness, and help people who need help. That’s civic
morality, even though the religions claim it as their own. It’s not their own.
It’s just the way society has to operate if it’s going to hold together. They
have nothing to do with religion."

I don't know why people entertain the notion that morality has to be propped up
by religion. To the contrary, morality frequently has to to be defended against
religion.

--
Cheers!
Edward

Edward McGuire wrote:
> On 2024-10-05, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
> > https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13924801/Britain-atheist-God-parents-religious-beliefs.html
> > Britain is entering its first 'atheist age': Non-believers
> > now outnumber those who believe in God - as parents fail
> > to pass their religious beliefs on to their children,
> > study finds
> >
> > Good for a more objective view of reality.
> > Bad for the ethics/morality needed to keep
> > large societies cohesive.
>
> Quoting a talk by Marie Castle:
>
> "There are basically three kinds of morality. There's civic morality, and
> religious morality, and atheist morality. Civic morality consists of all these
> cultural behaviors that hold a group together, like: don’t kill, and don’t
> steal, don’t bear false witness, and help people who need help. That’s civic
> morality, even though the religions claim it as their own. It’s not their own.
> It’s just the way society has to operate if it’s going to hold together. They
> have nothing to do with religion."
>
> I don't know why people entertain the notion that morality has to be propped up
> by religion. To the contrary, morality frequently has to to be defended against
> religion.

Religers think the only way people can be forced to
behave is by threat of damnation and hellfire. They
apparently fear that if they lost their faith, they would
let loose on a crime-n-sin spree, killing looting &
raping without restraint.

On 10/11/24 12:05 AM, El Kabong wrote:
> Edward McGuire wrote:
>> On 2024-10-05, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13924801/Britain-atheist-God-parents-religious-beliefs.html
>>> Britain is entering its first 'atheist age': Non-believers
>>> now outnumber those who believe in God - as parents fail
>>> to pass their religious beliefs on to their children,
>>> study finds
>>>
>>> Good for a more objective view of reality.
>>> Bad for the ethics/morality needed to keep
>>> large societies cohesive.
>>
>> Quoting a talk by Marie Castle:
>>
>> "There are basically three kinds of morality. There's civic morality, and
>> religious morality, and atheist morality. Civic morality consists of all these
>> cultural behaviors that hold a group together, like: don’t kill, and don’t
>> steal, don’t bear false witness, and help people who need help. That’s civic
>> morality, even though the religions claim it as their own. It’s not their own.
>> It’s just the way society has to operate if it’s going to hold together. They
>> have nothing to do with religion."
>>
>> I don't know why people entertain the notion that morality has to be propped up
>> by religion. To the contrary, morality frequently has to to be defended against
>> religion.
>
> Religers think the only way people can be forced to
> behave is by threat of damnation and hellfire. They
> apparently fear that if they lost their faith, they would
> let loose on a crime-n-sin spree, killing looting &
> raping without restraint.

In a cynical moment, Benjamin Franklin observed his
fellow men and, noting how awfully they behaved even
as nominal 'christians', he wondered how they would
behave without religious morality and 'threat of
hellfire'.

So, alas, it's a "human nature" problem. Without some
kind of psychological restraint too many people go
full barbarian. Truth may suck, but that's how it is.

Note too that, by def, half the pop has a 2-digit IQ.
Persuasive intellectual presentations and arguments
will fall flat. Only 'lower level' stuff, fears and
paranoia and an urge to go along with the crowd
will generate minimal compliance with needed
civ standards.

It has been said that managing populations is like
trying to herd cats. Fail and you have no civ, no
rights, naught but Mad Max World.

SO - since the dawn of civ - the idea of 'gods' was
invented, 'gods' who issued codes of behavior you
could not argue with nor escape live or dead.

It (sort-of) works.

As such, it doesn't matter if a religion, or any
religion, is true in the slightest - just that the
general pop THINKS it is. A dirty, but necessary,
fact.

MODERN world - 'gods' are replaced by omnipresent
surveillance and neo-Gestapo. Fear of THOSE can
induce the needed compliance. Still, not as 'good',
not as 'deep', as "belief".

186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 10/11/24 12:05 AM, El Kabong wrote:
> > Edward McGuire wrote:
> >> On 2024-10-05, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
> >>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13924801/Britain-atheist-God-parents-religious-beliefs.html
> >>> Britain is entering its first 'atheist age': Non-believers
> >>> now outnumber those who believe in God - as parents fail
> >>> to pass their religious beliefs on to their children,
> >>> study finds
> >>>
> >>> Good for a more objective view of reality.
> >>> Bad for the ethics/morality needed to keep
> >>> large societies cohesive.
> >>
> >> Quoting a talk by Marie Castle:
> >>
> >> "There are basically three kinds of morality. There's civic morality, and
> >> religious morality, and atheist morality. Civic morality consists of all these
> >> cultural behaviors that hold a group together, like: don’t kill, and don’t
> >> steal, don’t bear false witness, and help people who need help. That’s civic
> >> morality, even though the religions claim it as their own. It’s not their own.
> >> It’s just the way society has to operate if it’s going to hold together. They
> >> have nothing to do with religion."
> >>
> >> I don't know why people entertain the notion that morality has to be propped up
> >> by religion. To the contrary, morality frequently has to to be defended against
> >> religion.
> >
> > Religers think the only way people can be forced to
> > behave is by threat of damnation and hellfire. They
> > apparently fear that if they lost their faith, they would
> > let loose on a crime-n-sin spree, killing looting &
> > raping without restraint.
>
> In a cynical moment, Benjamin Franklin observed his
> fellow men and, noting how awfully they behaved even
> as nominal 'christians', he wondered how they would
> behave without religious morality and 'threat of
> hellfire'.
>
> So, alas, it's a "human nature" problem. Without some
> kind of psychological restraint too many people go
> full barbarian. Truth may suck, but that's how it is.
>
> Note too that, by def, half the pop has a 2-digit IQ.
> Persuasive intellectual presentations and arguments
> will fall flat. Only 'lower level' stuff, fears and
> paranoia and an urge to go along with the crowd
> will generate minimal compliance with needed
> civ standards.
>
> It has been said that managing populations is like
> trying to herd cats. Fail and you have no civ, no
> rights, naught but Mad Max World.
>
> SO - since the dawn of civ - the idea of 'gods' was
> invented, 'gods' who issued codes of behavior you
> could not argue with nor escape live or dead.
>
> It (sort-of) works.
>
> As such, it doesn't matter if a religion, or any
> religion, is true in the slightest - just that the
> general pop THINKS it is. A dirty, but necessary,
> fact.
>
> MODERN world - 'gods' are replaced by omnipresent
> surveillance and neo-Gestapo. Fear of THOSE can
> induce the needed compliance. Still, not as 'good',
> not as 'deep', as "belief".

Humans are born equipped with a conscience, something not
just an artifact of religious conditioning. Being social
animals, we have evolved mechanisms for getting along and
working together. Our sense of empathy and revulsion to
violence are partly cultural and partly innate. Obviously
it doesn't always work, but as you say it (sort-of)
works.

Is there a correlation between religion and socially
acceptable behavior? I don't see it. It's not like
atheists at large are amoral psychopaths.

The UK, now over 50% atheist, has less violent crime than
the US at 10-20%.

It was pointed out here before that atheists are around
0.5% of the prison population in the US. It's from a Pew
study, iirc.

"Science flies you to the moon.
Religion flies you into buildings." -- Victor J. Stenger

On 10/11/24 7:05 AM, El Kabong wrote:
> 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 10/11/24 12:05 AM, El Kabong wrote:
>>> Edward McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 2024-10-05, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13924801/Britain-atheist-God-parents-religious-beliefs.html
>>>>> Britain is entering its first 'atheist age': Non-believers
>>>>> now outnumber those who believe in God - as parents fail
>>>>> to pass their religious beliefs on to their children,
>>>>> study finds
>>>>>
>>>>> Good for a more objective view of reality.
>>>>> Bad for the ethics/morality needed to keep
>>>>> large societies cohesive.
>>>>
>>>> Quoting a talk by Marie Castle:
>>>>
>>>> "There are basically three kinds of morality. There's civic morality, and
>>>> religious morality, and atheist morality. Civic morality consists of all these
>>>> cultural behaviors that hold a group together, like: don’t kill, and don’t
>>>> steal, don’t bear false witness, and help people who need help. That’s civic
>>>> morality, even though the religions claim it as their own. It’s not their own.
>>>> It’s just the way society has to operate if it’s going to hold together. They
>>>> have nothing to do with religion."
>>>>
>>>> I don't know why people entertain the notion that morality has to be propped up
>>>> by religion. To the contrary, morality frequently has to to be defended against
>>>> religion.
>>>
>>> Religers think the only way people can be forced to
>>> behave is by threat of damnation and hellfire. They
>>> apparently fear that if they lost their faith, they would
>>> let loose on a crime-n-sin spree, killing looting &
>>> raping without restraint.
>>
>> In a cynical moment, Benjamin Franklin observed his
>> fellow men and, noting how awfully they behaved even
>> as nominal 'christians', he wondered how they would
>> behave without religious morality and 'threat of
>> hellfire'.
>>
>> So, alas, it's a "human nature" problem. Without some
>> kind of psychological restraint too many people go
>> full barbarian. Truth may suck, but that's how it is.
>>
>> Note too that, by def, half the pop has a 2-digit IQ.
>> Persuasive intellectual presentations and arguments
>> will fall flat. Only 'lower level' stuff, fears and
>> paranoia and an urge to go along with the crowd
>> will generate minimal compliance with needed
>> civ standards.
>>
>> It has been said that managing populations is like
>> trying to herd cats. Fail and you have no civ, no
>> rights, naught but Mad Max World.
>>
>> SO - since the dawn of civ - the idea of 'gods' was
>> invented, 'gods' who issued codes of behavior you
>> could not argue with nor escape live or dead.
>>
>> It (sort-of) works.
>>
>> As such, it doesn't matter if a religion, or any
>> religion, is true in the slightest - just that the
>> general pop THINKS it is. A dirty, but necessary,
>> fact.
>>
>> MODERN world - 'gods' are replaced by omnipresent
>> surveillance and neo-Gestapo. Fear of THOSE can
>> induce the needed compliance. Still, not as 'good',
>> not as 'deep', as "belief".
>
> Humans are born equipped with a conscience, something not
> just an artifact of religious conditioning. Being social
> animals, we have evolved mechanisms for getting along and
> working together. Our sense of empathy and revulsion to
> violence are partly cultural and partly innate. Obviously
> it doesn't always work, but as you say it (sort-of)
> works.

"Ethics" is founded on said 'empathy' - which is largely
inborn and universal to the species. However 'cultural'
influences can severely warp those inborn biases.

Religious 'morality' often builds on and/or modifies
that - adding a bunch of local favorite particulars
and throwing in the unarguable super-being thing whose
gaze and justice you can never evade.

> Is there a correlation between religion and socially
> acceptable behavior? I don't see it. It's not like
> atheists at large are amoral psychopaths.
>
> The UK, now over 50% atheist, has less violent crime than
> the US at 10-20%.

Seems like half the news from the UK is stabbings stabbings
and more stabbings (with some fatal beatings and shootings
thrown in for flavor). The bulk of the perps are Gen-Z and
especially Gen-A2. It's become so grim, amoral, that I'm
reminded of "Clockwork Orange" - a prescient work.

> It was pointed out here before that atheists are around
> 0.5% of the prison population in the US. It's from a Pew
> study, iirc.

I will say that atheists tend to be well into the three-digit
IQ area, takes some brains to figure out and escape the
religion scam. Being smart helps one see the value of doing
things 'right', seeing how The System works (or should work)
and serving higher civ realizing the social/self-interests
involved.

> "Science flies you to the moon.
> Religion flies you into buildings." -- Victor J. Stenger

But NEITHER makes things all fall down go boom.

Making it all work is not a clean proposition - takes
a little of this, a little of that, the odd big lie,
the odd illusion. At this point we're dealing with
about 8 BILLION monkey cousins, 8 BILLION points of
view, 8 BILLION ideas of How Things Ought To Be that
change daily. A total MESS ... with nuclear arsenals
like the cherry on top.

My ADVICE is to not try to eliminate religions.
You can work against their often more-odious
features in a subtle progressive fashion, but
never take away something until you have
something just as good and compelling to
replace it. Promote the possibilities of
non-belief by EXAMPLE, not by edict. 'Atheism'
must not become a de-facto religion unto
itself or it will take on everything bad
about religions as well.

186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 10/11/24 7:05 AM, El Kabong wrote:
....
> > Is there a correlation between religion and socially
> > acceptable behavior? I don't see it. It's not like
> > atheists at large are amoral psychopaths.
> >
> > The UK, now over 50% atheist, has less violent crime than
> > the US at 10-20%.
>
> Seems like half the news from the UK is stabbings stabbings
> and more stabbings (with some fatal beatings and shootings
> thrown in for flavor). The bulk of the perps are Gen-Z and
> especially Gen-A2. It's become so grim, amoral, that I'm
> reminded of "Clockwork Orange" - a prescient work.

Good point. One may get the impression that a
disproportional number of the UK stabbings are committed
by Muslim immigrants. "My god is always right" is an
example of religious amorality.

On 10/12/24 4:38 AM, El Kabong wrote:
> 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 10/11/24 7:05 AM, El Kabong wrote:
> ...
>>> Is there a correlation between religion and socially
>>> acceptable behavior? I don't see it. It's not like
>>> atheists at large are amoral psychopaths.
>>>
>>> The UK, now over 50% atheist, has less violent crime than
>>> the US at 10-20%.
>>
>> Seems like half the news from the UK is stabbings stabbings
>> and more stabbings (with some fatal beatings and shootings
>> thrown in for flavor). The bulk of the perps are Gen-Z and
>> especially Gen-A2. It's become so grim, amoral, that I'm
>> reminded of "Clockwork Orange" - a prescient work.
>
> Good point. One may get the impression that a
> disproportional number of the UK stabbings are committed
> by Muslim immigrants. "My god is always right" is an
> example of religious amorality.

SOME are by "muslim immigrants", they get the most press,
but so far as I can tell by the news the past few years
MOST ultraviolence done by sweet pasty-white 'Christian'
English boyz. Stealing a vehicle and crashing it into people
on the path is one of the newer thrills.

This is moral/ethical rot from within. The State does
not have the funds, manpower, legal power or even will
to create a credible deterrent. Ergo, it's going all
'Lord Of The Flies'.

In the 1800s there was a similar breakdown in civil behavior,
most visible in (though not limited to) the 'lower classes'.
Many ultra-authoritarian methods were tried - including
'transportation' to Australia and lots of hangings. The
civil ethic had seriously eroded. The iron fist was not
enough.

What I cannot clearly answer is what CHANGED this. They
didn't pray their way out of it. As the 1900s came around
a sense of civil order/ethics seemed to re-assert itself
out of nowhere. People began to behave because they WANTED
to, saw it as a sort of ideal. Yes, still rather seedy in
the poorer sections of the cities, but not nearly as bad
as 50 years before.

Some popular affinity for the new 'Edwardian Gentleman'
look/feel/style/mindset ??? Did that become a partial
'religion substitute', enough to soon tilt almost the
entire society ???

We need a Brit historican-sociologist in on this. It
will be best understood by someone 'on the inside'
who sees all the cultural micro-nuances foreign
observers tend to miss.