[hawkesnest]

I have so many questions. How would one determine whether I were a non-believer? What is an appropriate punishment? Why are Abrahamic religions whe ones which are allowable but all others are not? What benefit would this provide? Do the benefits outweigh the harm?

Is it ok to be a non-practicing Jew, or is it required to be orthodox? Are Mormons acceptable? 7th Day Adventists? Jehovah Witnesses? Why or why not?

How does one believe something when they simply and sincerely do not? Is it possible to force someone to believe something?

Can you cite examples of blasphemy laws which have proven to be a net positive in society? How do we deal with people having similar beliefs but exercising them wildly differently? Is that ok? Why or why not

I'm all for thought experiments and playing what-if, but if you're going to make the statement that my sheer existence should be illegal, I need quite a bit of clarity!

[fknorangesite]

> What is an appropriate punishment?

You know as well as I do that going down a road like what antibasilisk is suggesting only ends in concentration camps.

[hawkesnest]

I do want to hear what they have to say. It sounds like they have some pretty out-of-the-box ideas about how society should function. Admittedly, it seems as though I would oppose those positions, but rather than dismiss them as the muses of a sociopath I prefer to get to specifics and address the idea in its entirety.

The notion of forced religion certain could lead to the worst versions of theocracy imaginable, but surely someone would think things to their logical conclusion before professing something so heinous. Right?

[hydrok9]

They are wanting to think that they are taking the "long view" of things, are being totally logical,and that calling it "heinous" is simply the view of people on the wrong side of history.

[antibasilisk]

>How would one determine whether I were a non-believer?

It would be according to what is apparent from your statements, observances and symbolisms. If you wear a cross or a sockcloth for example, you are counted among the Christians until otherwise proven, a similar principle is applied to wearing a yarmulke, tefflin, kufi or hijab. These are of course not perfect metrics, but this was the standard used in the middle ages in Arabia, and it generally sufficed for demonstrating group identity in practice.

>Do the benefits outweigh the harm?

I think that it is important for humans to have some shared basis for a worldview, and the abrahamic religions encompass a significant enough portion of the world without so much variation as to be as problematic as other belief systems.

>Is it ok to be a non-practicing Jew, or is it required to be orthodox? Are Mormons acceptable? 7th Day Adventists? Jehovah Witnesses? Why or why not?

This is a question I have been exploring, and that I need to do more rigorous thinking on. I cannot provide a satisfactory answer at the moment, other than that people who take wholly symbolic positions on religions would definitely be excluded from those definitions (e.g: jungians, nontheist quakers). Other groups are a greyer area to me.

>How does one believe something when they simply and sincerely do not? Is it possible to force someone to believe something?

It's not necessary for us to go exploring your thoughts, that would be impractical and invasive. We need only concern ourselves with what's external and the impact it has on society.

Although it's not possible to force someone to believe something, practising a belief may eventually lead to you feeling an affinity towards it if you're on the fence.

>Can you cite examples of blasphemy laws which have proven to be a net positive in society?

This question actually does very well in demonstrate the conflict in worldview that becomes apparent in the assumptions we use. What is 'positive'? As far as many religious people are concerned, a lack of blasphemy and irreligiosity is itself beneficial.

>How do we deal with people having similar beliefs but exercising them wildly differently? Is that ok? Why or why not

Any given belief system necessarily has a certain tolerance for variation in beliefs, and usually a distinction is drawn between creedal differences and practical differences, with the former being a greater concern than the latter.

[hawkesnest]

>We need only concern ourselves with what's external and the impact it has on society.

This I can wholeheartedly agree with.

In what way is atheism a danger or harm to society except that it violates your proposed monoculture?

[antibasilisk]

>In what way is atheism a danger or harm to society except that it violates your proposed monoculture?

Violating said monoculture is a problem in itself because it leads to a population that cannot collaborate or agree even broadly on morals that concern day to day life. We're seeing this right now in America, where each side of the aisle (which broadly speaking is cut across religious lines) is becoming progressively angrier as they realise the others beliefs necessarily requires capitulation from their side on some issues, in ways that cannot be accepted, such as abortion or the integration of homosexuals and transgenders. This is gradually destabilizing the country.

[hawkesnest]

Religion is in no way a force for bringing people together. Anti-Semitism is rampant among many Christians. Catholics and Protestants have quite a history of not seeing eye-to-eye. Shia and Sunni Muslims are pretty notorious at this point for their battles.

Your examples are counter to your own point. Jews don't seem to have the same views on abortion that the evangelicals appear to have. The United Methodist church is splitting because of differing views on homosexuality and other LGBTQ+ issues.

Having common values is very important, but predicating it on all the doctrine of a set of religions or a single religion seems shaky at best.

I also noticed you still haven't given a good reason. Your opening line is circular - violating the monoculture is bad because it disrupts the monoculture. Instead of proposing a broad set of morals outside of religion, you intend to (by force?) push a set of morals that YOU dictate based off ancient texts of dubious origin.

[antibasilisk]

>Religion is in no way a force for bringing people together. Anti-Semitism is rampant among many Christians. Catholics and Protestants have quite a history of not seeing eye-to-eye. Shia and Sunni Muslims are pretty notorious at this point for their battles.

People will not cease to differ, yet despite all of that they agree that atheism is disastrous.

>Your examples are counter to your own point. Jews don't seem to have the same views on abortion that the evangelicals appear to have. The United Methodist church is splitting because of differing views on homosexuality and other LGBTQ+ issues.

This is a very shallow understanding of religion. There will always be fringe groups who differ. The fact is religious texts have a meaning, that someone wants to negate that meaning makes no difference. If text did not have meaning you would not be able to understand what I am saying.

Jews, Muslims and Christians all have slightly different beliefs on abortion between them for example, but they all agree the unborn have certain rights. The differences are minor such as when the unborn is a person, if the unborn can be mourned, what constitutes necessity that could justify an abortion etc. None of these groups permit elective abortion.

>Instead of proposing a broad set of morals outside of religion

It is not possible to believe that religion dictates morals, while also believing in morals external to your religion, because it entails contradiction.

>you intend to (by force?) push a set of morals that YOU dictate based off ancient texts of dubious origin

If my morals were based on conjecture, they would be just as baseless as your moral conjecture, regardless what the conjecture was.

You have no moral basis from which to criticize me, you only have personal preferences, and there is no god of liberal humanism that will punish me in a way that I cannot escape if I fail to comply.

[hawkesnest]

It's clear you've not researched ethics thoroughly. I guess all those philosophers just needed to agree to use the same exact interpretation of the same holy books and there would be no need for discussion, right?

The Methodists are hardly a fringe group.

Atheism is "disastrous" only in that it is based on non-belief, not that Atheists themselves are detrimental to society.

The hundreds/thousands of protestant sects counter your statement that "religious texts have a meaning." They are long, often self-contradictory, and open to many interpretations. Not "a" meaning, but many "meanings." Again, the things you are claiming to be strength do not bear out in reality.

I think you to be better than the sociopath you claim to be. Do you only abstain from murder and rape and lying and cheating to avoid punishment in the afterlife? Because while I may have "baseless" moral conjectures, a simply moral code of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is superior in a myriad of ways.

You admit yourself, morals are based off standards. We can agree to those which bear out healthy, happy, productive societies or ones which do not. It's funny how most people consider theocracies to have a negative connotation.

Still waiting to hear what punishment is befitting a person of non-belief.

[_npe3]

"You have no moral basis from which to criticize me, you only have personal preferences, and there is no god of liberal humanism that will punish me in a way that I cannot escape if I fail to comply. "

What does this have to do with your argument?