On 13 Oct, 19:08, Al Klein <ruk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> No. In a society in which there's no concept of gods, no one brings
> it up.
Obviously not. But such a society would bear no comparison to ours in
that regard, since in our society there is now and always has been a
concept - or various concepts - of deity. Arguing what might happen
in some other society where the thought never occurred to anyone is
redundant: we're in this one, where it did.
The closest we'd ever be able to get would be to try to enforce a
society where religion is illegal - but a theocracy can't make people
believe, deep down, in the prescribed deity. All it can do is force
them to say the prayers and go through the motions. In just the same
way, an anti-theocracy couldn't truly prevent believers from
believing. All it could hope to do is force them to keep silent,
which no doubt some would welcome gladly; but the atheist who
advocates such an oppressive regime would be no more moral than the
fundie religionists who'd like to impose their beliefs on everyone
else.
> People don't sit around discussing how they don't believe in
> gods when no one makes a claim to believe in one.
Just out of interest, would there be an alt.atheism in such a society,
do you think?
> How many Greeks, prior to 100BC, talked about not believing in Jesus?
So are we talking about Jesus now, or still about gods? Greek society
pre-Jesus had a sight more gods than most people have now.
> >So while atheists claim the moral high ground on the basis that
> >they're only 'reacting' to what the evil theists do, the claim is
> >based only on the atheists' own assertions.
>
> So please describe how a discussion about gods would come about in a
> society that's completely atheistic (lacking any belief in any god).
It probably wouldn't, of course - but as I said, we're not *in* such a
society, and have never truly known one, it's pretty much a red
herring for our purposes here.
|
