The unintended consequences of liberal America

[g8orbill]

Good analysis by Bill O'Reilly

http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=556&vid=-512719176036595484


this further illustrates my stance on the moral decay of our society

[rivergator]

O'Reilly certainly does take himself seriously, doesn't he?

But the far-left despises me as well because I bring a traditional sensibility to my commentary. Primarily, we are problem solvers here.

:grin::grin::grin:

Meanwhile, Drug addiction is the liberals fault?
And, no, I don't believe that keeping religion out of the public schools has a single affect on our nation's morality.

[Tim85]

O'Reilly certainly does take himself seriously, doesn't he?



:grin::grin::grin:

Meanwhile, Drug addiction is the liberals fault?
And, no, I don't believe that keeping religion out of the public schools has a single affect on our nation's morality.

What a silly statement, how could it not have a "single effect" on our nation's morality? The vast majority of "religion's" teachings is morality-based, and you don't think there would be an effect?

[wgbgator]

Conservatives fight to keep religion out of school too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/us/school-yoga-class-draws-religious-protest-from-christians.html?_r=0

Though the yoga class had a notably calming effect on the children, things were far from placid outside the gymnasium.

A small but vocal group of parents, spurred on by the head of a local conservative advocacy group, has likened these 30-minute yoga classes to religious indoctrination. They say the classes — part of a comprehensive program offered to all public school students in this affluent suburb north of San Diego — represent a violation of the First Amendment.

[rivergator]

What a silly statement, how could it not have a "single effect" on our nation's morality? The vast majority of "religion's" teachings is morality-based, and you don't think there would be an effect?

no

[Tim85]

no

Why are we on a message board again? I can't imagine it's for discussion.

[g8orbill]

of course taking prayer and God out of our educational system has led to the moral decay of our society-look at how things were prior to Madelaine Murray O'hare vs the morals of today

[rivergator]

of course taking prayer and God out of our educational system has led to the moral decay of our society-look at how things were prior to Madelaine Murray O'hare vs the morals of today

It could have started when we put In God We Trust everywhere ....

[g8orbill]

it could have river- but it didn't-and you know it didn't

it began with the hippy movement and madeline Murray O'Hare

[wgbgator]

I'm certain people were lamenting the moral decay of society in America long before tie-dye, love beads and long hair became fashionable. Your equivalent in 1929 was probably talking about how jazz, flappers and bobbed hair were causing America's downfall.

[108]

there will always be drug use, with or without religious morality

see history

[tegator80]

I think most people are trying too hard to explain it. While our country is/was based on something different than the other major dynasties of the past (freedom, not oppressive ruling over the weaker), I think we are in a natural cycle of human frailty. Over many years we have gotten full of ourselves and what we can accomplish. The arrogance allows us to both pursue social engineering through noble ideas and to be self absorbed rather than believe in a larger cause; God and religion being a large part of our decency.

What is more dismaying is how our founding fathers got the checks and balance thing pretty well worked out, we saw how the other systems kept failing and we STILL allowed the dismantling of our way of life. So probably the biggest and most egregious loss through our arrogance is our ability to think discernibly and independently as a collective whole and to protect our system against the noble ideas that are want to come along.

[Tim85]

there will always be drug use, rape, murder, thievery, greed, evil, racism, sexism, everythingism with or without religious morality

see history

fify

[rivergator]

I think most people are trying too hard to explain it. While our country is/was based on something different than the other major dynasties of the past (freedom, not oppressive ruling over the weaker), I think we are in a natural cycle of human frailty. Over many years we have gotten full of ourselves and what we can accomplish. The arrogance allows us to both pursue social engineering through noble ideas and to be self absorbed rather than believe in a larger cause; God and religion being a large part of our decency.

What is more dismaying is how our founding fathers got the checks and balance thing pretty well worked out, we saw how the other systems kept failing and we STILL allowed the dismantling of our way of life. So probably the biggest and most egregious loss through our arrogance is our ability to think discernibly and independently as a collective whole and to protect our system against the noble ideas that are want to come along.

Disagree that you need god and religion to be decent. The most religious states don't have the least problems. The least religious countries don't have the most.

[bluelang]

https://forums.playfire.com/_proxy/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fadaptershack.com%2Fm%2Ffiles%2Fi mg-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com_358665e6ff888fb1ba9d86182 1843fa7_http_i841.photobucket.com_albums_zz338_ian imexd_oh-look-its-this-thread-again.jpg&hmac=07d96493f4729d3427f546c4b6cf7f27

[ChartsandGrafs]

O'Reilly is a textbook, authoritarian schmuck.

What makes him think these consequences are "unintended"?

[tegator80]

Disagree that you need god and religion to be decent. The most religious states don't have the least problems. The least religious countries don't have the most.

You are not recognizing what built our country. Many people need something to believe in that is bigger than the here and now. Where we differ from other countries is that we recognize the oppressive nature of certain religious principles (it is for their own good) and we have separation of church and state (as opposed to sharia law). But now many people are emotionally detached from anything substantive and our society doesn't admonish them for it. Anything goes, but at what cost?

[RealGatorFan]

O'Reilly certainly does take himself seriously, doesn't he?



:grin::grin::grin:

Meanwhile, Drug addiction is the liberals fault?
And, no, I don't believe that keeping religion out of the public schools has a single affect on our nation's morality.

The lack of religion in schools is breeding the next pyscho killers, who lack any morals or conscience. They will kill without even the slightest rise in heart rate and will not fear being caught or killed. We are doing it now and you can read it online forums and comments. There is no balance or any personal responsibility. When I was 12 years old, nearly 100% of my peers wanted to be the good guy - Luke Skywalker, Obi Wan Kenobi, GI Joe, etc. Yet, ask major toy manufacturers today who rules the roost and it's Darth Vadar, Saruman/Sauron, Joker (or pretty much everybody except for Batman), a whole host of comic bad guys, etc.

There is a huge movement to the darkside (so to speak) that I haven't seen in my lifetime. There are more child murderers than ever before. Most of this has occurred in the last 30 years which is about the time the liberals introduced political correctness. Hmm....

[RealGatorFan]

River,

Who made up the majority of the hippy movement in the 60s? Liberals. I knew of no republican hippies. Hippies = social acceptance of anything not moral. Yet, how many hippies did drugs? Most, if not, all, did. Yet, these ex-hippies are now in positions of power.

[rivergator]

You are not recognizing what built our country. Many people need something to believe in that is bigger than the here and now. Where we differ from other countries is that we recognize the oppressive nature of certain religious principles (it is for their own good) and we have separation of church and state (as opposed to sharia law). But now many people are emotionally detached from anything substantive and our society doesn't admonish them for it. Anything goes, but at what cost?

Yes, many people do need to believe in something bigger than themselves. I'm not sure how that addresses the issue, though.

[bluelang]

There is a huge movement to the darkside (so to speak) that I haven't seen in my lifetime. There are more child murderers than ever before. Most of this has occurred in the last 30 years which is about the time the liberals introduced political correctness. Hmm....

I know that, as usual, data isn't going to do anything AT ALL to change your emotionally charged viewpoint, but: you're wrong. Pretty much all violent crime has been on a rapid downturn over the last decade and a half (due to abortions (talk about unintended consequences!))

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/children.cfm

Have a nice day.

[rivergator]

The lack of religion in schools is breeding the next pyscho killers, who lack any morals or conscience. They will kill without even the slightest rise in heart rate and will not fear being caught or killed. We are doing it now and you can read it online forums and comments. There is no balance or any personal responsibility. When I was 12 years old, nearly 100% of my peers wanted to be the good guy - Luke Skywalker, Obi Wan Kenobi, GI Joe, etc. Yet, ask major toy manufacturers today who rules the roost and it's Darth Vadar, Saruman/Sauron, Joker (or pretty much everybody except for Batman), a whole host of comic bad guys, etc.

There is a huge movement to the darkside (so to speak) that I haven't seen in my lifetime. There are more child murderers than ever before. Most of this has occurred in the last 30 years which is about the time the liberals introduced political correctness. Hmm....

That's one truly bizarre. Yes, liberals introduced political correctness which turned people into child killers because, after all, what's more politically correct than murder? Oh, and only religion can stop it.

[Matthanuf06]

The liberals problem is that they are short sighted problem solvers with no moral compass. I'm not even talking about God, but rather they have no issues stealing to solve their short term goals. They simply don't care about obvious consequences and don't worry about unintended consequences. When those consequences occur its an opportunity for another short sighted decision.

The elite, on both sides of the aisle, really only care about power. The ends justify the means.

And the thought that the lack of religion in school is causing any serious problem is illogical. What do you propose, full blown Christian schools? If so, send your kid to one. If you are talking about a couple prayers then that doesn't have an ounce to do with anything. It's a lame talking point. Do you really think a school prayer or a phrase with God in it would affect development at all? Come on...

Living a moral life takes A LOT more than just a few phrases everyday. Frankly the key to that is education more than a few God lines a day.

[rivergator]

The liberals problem is that they are short sighted problem solvers with no moral compass. I'm not even talking about God, but rather they have no issues stealing to solve their short term goals. They simply don't care about obvious consequences and don't worry about unintended consequences. When those consequences occur its an opportunity for another short sighted decision.

The elite, on both sides of the aisle, really only care about power. The ends justify the means.

And the thought that the lack of religion in school is causing any serious problem is illogical. What do you propose, full blown Christian schools? If so, send your kid to one. If you are talking about a couple prayers then that doesn't have an ounce to do with anything. It's a lame talking point. Do you really think a school prayer or a phrase with God in it would affect development at all? Come on...

I don't know, I think I have a pretty good moral compass.

[Matthanuf06]

I don't know, I think I have a pretty good moral compass.

How much are you willing to steal and pillage to achieve your wants?

[Matthanuf06]

I also don't think the majority of modern day conservatives have much of a moral compass either.

Stealing at the point of the gun of forced conversion at the point of the gun?

And thats coming from a practicing Catholic. I just don't think my religious beliefs should impact you one iota.

[tegator80]

Yes, many people do need to believe in something bigger than themselves. I'm not sure how that addresses the issue, though.

I believe your question is "how does a lack of something bigger in people's lives affect social decay?" I guess the best answer is that it gives them a sense of purpose; and without that purpose, what is there to be honorable for? The end result (for many) is simple hedonism and that goes for both the good stuff as well as the bad. I smell good food, I am getting hungry so I eat; I feel excited from your sexuality so let's have some right now; I don't like your being in my way so I want to eliminate you.

[rivergator]

I believe your question is "how does a lack of something bigger in people's lives affect social decay?" I guess the best answer is that it gives them a sense of purpose; and without that purpose, what is there to be honorable for? The end result (for many) is simple hedonism and that goes for both the good stuff as well as the bad. I smell good food, I am getting hungry so I eat; I feel excited from your sexuality so let's have some right now; I don't like your being in my way so I want to eliminate you.

there could be some who are so weak that way that they need the sense of a higher power to prevent them from killing someone else.
But it doesn't seem true for most people:

Zuckerman analyzed a wide array of data comparing religious nations to less religious nations and also, interestingly, religious states within the United States (i.e. "Bible-belt" states) to less religious states. While I encourage readers to examine the article directly through the link above, here are just a few of the highlights:

Criminal Behavior:

Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."

Zuckerman cites a 1999 Barna study that finds that atheists and agnostics actually have lower divorce rates than religious Americans.

He also cites another study, in Canada, that found conservative Christian women experienced higher rates of domestic violence than non-affiliated women.

link (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion)

[tegator80]

there could be some who are so weak that way that they need the sense of a higher power to prevent them from killing someone else.
But it doesn't seem true for most people:



link (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion)

If you want to make this strictly a religious discussion then I will give you my two things I will only say regarding religion in a public forum.

1) Religion is like most things in life: a complete lack of it is bad but in excess amounts it is equally bad. Balance is the key.

2) God is perfect, Man is not, including those who espouse that they know what God thinks more than you. It is called the "beware of false prophets" mantra and it is the foundation for the separation of church and state.

And if I would add one last issue, not religious but equally weighted in the discussion, it is that what an individual is capable of doing is NOT the same thing as what and entire community has to be held accountable to. That is why we need our "public" persona (call it our service to our community) and we need a space with a door to close and be ourselves...and nobody should care who or what we are as long as someone else isn't being harmed.

[ChartsandGrafs]

How much are you willing to steal and pillage to achieve your wants?

River's not interested in stealing and pillaging himself. He knows it's immoral.

But River doesn't mind voting to have armed government thugs do it on his behalf. Then it becomes perfectly acceptable. Stealing and pillaging is moral for people like River as long as he can have a middleman doing it for him. River refers to this as, "having a moral compass".

It's a government worship thing, you wouldn't understand.

[g8orbill]

it is a lack of Jesus in his heart thing

[rivergator]

If you want to make this strictly a religious discussion then I will give you my two things I will only say regarding religion in a public forum.

1) Religion is like most things in life: a complete lack of it is bad but in excess amounts it is equally bad. Balance is the key.

2) God is perfect, Man is not, including those who espouse that they know what God thinks more than you. It is called the "beware of false prophets" mantra and it is the foundation for the separation of church and state.

And if I would add one last issue, not religious but equally weighted in the discussion, it is that what an individual is capable of doing is NOT the same thing as what and entire community has to be held accountable to. That is why we need our "public" persona (call it our service to our community) and we need a space with a door to close and be ourselves...and nobody should care who or what we are as long as someone else isn't being harmed.

You guys are the ones who attributed our problems to lack of religion in the schools. There's no indication that religion helps those problems at all.

[ChartsandGrafs]

it is a lack of Jesus in his heart thing

It has nothing to do with Jesus. Morality isn't based on religion, it's based on nature.

[wgbgator]

If "morality" is based on nature, then its the war of all against all.

[ChartsandGrafs]

If "morality" is based on nature, then its the war of all against all.

I don't see it that way.

[wgbgator]

I don't see it that way.

Not surprising. Basically nature means that if I am strong enough to take something from you to survive without harm to myself, than I can. I can see how that might be inconvenient for you.

[wgbgator]

Nature is probably the ultimate example of collective living too. People tend to team up in clans or kin groups, not live as isolated individuals in caves.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Not surprising. Basically nature means that if I am strong enough to take something from you to survive without harm to myself, than I can. I can see how that might be inconvenient for you.

How are you going to take something from me without causing harm to yourself? Through some sort of magic? Make-believe? How, exactly?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Nature is probably the ultimate example of collective living too. People tend to team up in clans or kin groups, not live as isolated individuals in caves.

LOL.

So a state of nature would be considered more collectivist than something like the Soviet Union or China?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[wgbgator]

How are you going to take something from me without causing harm to yourself? Through some sort of magic? Make-believe? How, exactly?

This is a serious question? You cant think of how a stronger person can take something from a weaker person without serious harm to themselves?

[wgbgator]

LOL.

So a state of nature would be considered more collectivist than something like the Soviet Union or China?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Absolutely.

[ChartsandGrafs]

This is a serious question? You cant think of how a stronger person can take something from a weaker person without serious harm to themselves?

Yes it's a serious question. Is there a reason you're not able to answer it?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Absolutely.

OK.

"A state of nature is more collectivist than the Soviet Union!"

"Pigs can fly!"

What's the difference between these two statements?

[wgbgator]

Yes it's a serious question. Is there a reason you're not able to answer it?

You need an explanation of how a strong person could overpower a weak person other than simply being bigger and stronger? We could add weapons to the mix if you wish, or simply getting some other people to help me if I'm unsure of the outcome. Is that a sufficient answer?

[wgbgator]

OK.

"A state of nature is more collectivist than the Soviet Union!"

"Pigs can fly!"

What's the difference between these two statements?

I mean, even the Soviets had a constitution that recognized rights. Does the state of nature recognize the right to rest and leisure or care in old age? Of course not. The state of nature is the war of groups of people against other groups of people with no individual rights recognized. Its a collectivist nightmare.

[ChartsandGrafs]

You need an explanation of how a strong person could overpower a weak person other than simply being bigger and stronger? We could add weapons to the mix if you wish, or simply getting some other people to help me if I'm unsure of the outcome. Is that a sufficient answer?

No, it's not sufficient.

How would a stronger person not be harming himself by stealing something from a weaker person? By pursuing such an action, he'd be creating an enemy, assuming he leaves his victim alive. And if he kills his victim, he's destroying a potential trade partner or future ally. So how would that not be harmful?

I'm open to persuasion. Show me the error of my thinking.

[GatorRade]

Count me in with river that religion does not create morality. Humans create morality. And religion.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I mean, even the Soviets had a constitution that recognized rights.

You mean, a piece of paper that claimed to recognize rights.

Of course, that piece of paper wouldn't do you much good if you openly dissented with the State, and it certainly wouldn't stop them from throwing you in the gulag.

Does the state of nature recognize the right to rest and leisure or care in old age?

Only man can recognize rights, and yes, many men would recognize the natural rights of other men to be left alone.

Old age care isn't a right.

Of course not. The state of nature is the war of groups of people against other groups of people with no individual rights recognized. Its a collectivist nightmare.

The problem is you don't understand the concept of rights. I recall you saying something in another thread that rights are determined by voting, or something like that. That's a perversion of the concept of rights, and will only lead to us talking past each other.

Anyway, what you just described, the war of groups of people against other groups of people, has been a constant feature of mankind both inside and outside the state of nature, so you're not really making any kind of point here. People fight each other. So what? How does that support your point?

[wgbgator]

No, it's not sufficient.

How would a stronger person not be harming himself by stealing something from a weaker person? By pursuing such an action, he'd be creating an enemy, assuming he leaves his victim alive. And if he kills his victim, he's destroying a potential trade partner or future ally. So how would that not be harmful?

I'm open to persuasion. Show me the error of my thinking.

Why would I consider someone a hypothetical future trade partner or ally when my entire existence is based on short term survival?

[tegator80]

You guys are the ones who attributed our problems to lack of religion in the schools. There's no indication that religion helps those problems at all.

I presume that your line of thought in your posts is to justify your beliefs (or lack there of). I was merely trying to help you to get some clarity as to why Man embraces religion and how it affects the quality - if not down right survival - of a civilization. And in dong so I also attempted to use more secular reasoning instead of religious dogma. I despise any person who wants to convert someone to their way of thinking because they believe it. Enlighten, yes. But to coerce or "enforce God's laws" is to invite terrible hardship (the Inquisitions the best Christian example).

But if you want to be a non-believer, don't let me get in your way. I just feel sorry for anyone who doesn't believe in anything. It must be very isolating. And as I said in the last post, what an individual does is completely different than what a community must do to survive. So your mantra is fine for you but don't be surprised when an idea reaches a critical mass of people and those things that you expect magically go away, and then maybe you can see that life is a little bit more complicated than you imagined. And most likely the ability to change course back to sanity (or whatever you want to call it) will not be there.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Why would I consider someone a hypothetical future trade partner or ally when my entire existence is based on short term survival?

Because, other people enrich our lives. They provide value and benefit to us, just by existing.

You might be good at catching fish and building shelters, while another person might be good at hunting and pottery. You could certainly kill that person and take his stuff, but you'd be depriving yourself of a steady trade partner and ally whose unique talents and skills would help make your life better, both over the short and long term.

That's why I don't understand how you could propose a person steal from and kill another person without it causing some kind of harm. And this is just one way of looking at the situation. You also have to consider the societal ramifications of theft and murder. If people know you're a thief or murderer, they usually won't sit around and wait until you victimize them too. They'll come looking for you before you can go looking for them.

So how is the strong man going to escape harm to himself by killing the weak man? I'm still hazy on this.

[rivergator]

I presume that your line of thought in your posts is to justify your beliefs (or lack there of). I was merely trying to help you to get some clarity as to why Man embraces religion and how it affects the quality - if not down right survival - of a civilization. And in dong so I also attempted to use more secular reasoning instead of religious dogma. I despise any person who wants to convert someone to their way of thinking because they believe it. Enlighten, yes. But to coerce or "enforce God's laws" is to invite terrible hardship (the Inquisitions the best Christian example).

But if you want to be a non-believer, don't let me get in your way. I just feel sorry for anyone who doesn't believe in anything. It must be very isolating. And as I said in the last post, what an individual does is completely different than what a community must do to survive. So your mantra is fine for you but don't be surprised when an idea reaches a critical mass of people and those things that you expect magically go away, and then maybe you can see that life is a little bit more complicated than you imagined. And most likely the ability to change course back to sanity (or whatever you want to call it) will not be there.

No, I'm not trying to justify my beliefs and your claim of feeling sorry for me is just silly stuff.
I'll try to make this clearer: The claim was made here multiple times that a lack of religion in the schools is a significant cause of our problems. I pointed to evidence that the presence of religion doesn't seem to make things better and the absence of it doesn't seem to make things worse.
Seems pretty clear.

[wgbgator]

Because, other people enrich our lives. They provide value and benefit to us, just by existing.

You might be good at catching fish and building shelters, while another person might be good at hunting and pottery. You could certainly kill that person and take his stuff, but you'd be depriving yourself of a steady trade partner and ally whose unique talents and skills would help make your life better, both over the short and long term.

That's why I don't understand how you could propose a person steal from and kill another person without it causing some kind of harm. And this is just one way of looking at the situation. You also have to consider the societal ramifications of theft and murder. If people know you're a thief or murderer, they usually won't sit around and wait until you victimize them too. They'll come looking for you before you can go looking for them.

So how is the strong man going to escape harm to himself by killing the weak man? I'm still hazy on this.

I only propose that in order to survive in a state of nature, rational self-interest means that I can and will kill or be violent to get what I need to survive. Immediate survival will always trump any other hypothetical future need or desire. And the state of nature is a constant battle for survival, so when is this enrichment occuring in a existence that is all about my short term self-interest?

[wgbgator]

You mean, a piece of paper that claimed to recognize rights.

Of course, that piece of paper wouldn't do you much good if you openly dissented with the State, and it certainly wouldn't stop them from throwing you in the gulag.



Only man can recognize rights, and yes, many men would recognize the natural rights of other men to be left alone.

Old age care isn't a right.



The problem is you don't understand the concept of rights. I recall you saying something in another thread that rights are determined by voting, or something like that. That's a perversion of the concept of rights, and will only lead to us talking past each other.

Anyway, what you just described, the war of groups of people against other groups of people, has been a constant feature of mankind both inside and outside the state of nature, so you're not really making any kind of point here. People fight each other. So what? How does that support your point?

So a piece of paper backed by sovereign force is a worthless guarantee, but your assumption that others will respect your rights without a piece of paper and no force is rock-solid?

Sure, people still fight and resort to violence, even war. That doesnt put it on the level of nature though. There's lots of evidence that violence has decreased through the centuries, and that the state has been an instrumental civilizing force in that.

[tegator80]

No, I'm not trying to justify my beliefs and your claim of feeling sorry for me is just silly stuff.
I'll try to make this clearer: The claim was made here multiple times that a lack of religion in the schools is a significant cause of our problems. I pointed to evidence that the presence of religion doesn't seem to make things better and the absence of it doesn't seem to make things worse.
Seems pretty clear.

I am sorry to have gotten the message wrong. But my point is still the same: you want to see tangible results between religion and non-religion as a function of society and I am saying that without religion it is likely that civilized society doesn't exist. And it seems to me you want it to be all one way of the other. Religion is good/bad or lack of religion is good/bad and your conclusion is that it doesn't have any impact. But this premise is not taking into consideration the underpinnings of what people would call religion (something bigger than themselves) that just isn't a cognitive trait in their decision making but nonetheless is still there. And as I said, if enough people decide that religion really doesn't have value then I expect that what we all consider the foundation of society will magically disappear with little or no ability to turn back around. JMHO

[ChartsandGrafs]

I only propose that in order to survive in a state of nature, rational self-interest means that I can and will kill or be violent to get what I need to survive. Immediate survival will always trump any other hypothetical future need or desire. And the state of nature is a constant battle for survival, so when is this enrichment occuring in a existence that is all about my short term self-interest?

Stealing from and murdering others isn't in your rational self-interest, though. Your rational self-interest is to survive, live your life, and maybe find a little peace and happiness. It's hard to do that when you attack others, since it's in everyone's rational self-interest to defend themselves from attackers.

You have a much better chance of maintaining your life and surviving by respecting others. This is where the concept of rights comes from.

[rivergator]

I am sorry to have gotten the message wrong. But my point is still the same: you want to see tangible results between religion and non-religion as a function of society and I am saying that without religion it is likely that civilized society doesn't exist. And it seems to me you want it to be all one way of the other. Religion is good/bad or lack of religion is good/bad and your conclusion is that it doesn't have any impact. But this premise is not taking into consideration the underpinnings of what people would call religion (something bigger than themselves) that just isn't a cognitive trait in their decision making but nonetheless is still there. And as I said, if enough people decide that religion really doesn't have value then I expect that what we all consider the foundation of society will magically disappear with little or no ability to turn back around. JMHO

I see no evidence that civilization is dependent upon religion. Here's the 10 least religious countries, according to Gallup. I don't see them falling apart:


Country Yes, important No, unimportant
Sweden 16.5% 83%
Denmark 18% 80.5%
Estonia 16% 78%
Norway 20.5% 78%
Hong Kong 23% 75.5%
Japan 23.5% 75%
Czech Republic 20.5% 74.5%
United Kingdom 26.5% 73%
Finland 28% 70%
France 29.5% 69.5%

And the 10 most religious. They're not really the pinnacle of civilization on this planet:


Country Yes, important No, unimportant
Niger 100% 0%
Bangladesh 100% 0%
Oman 99.5% 0.5%
Morocco 98.5% 1%
Indonesia 99% 1%
Mauritania 98% 1.5%
Democratic Republic of the Congo 98.5% 1.5%
Djibouti 98% 1.5%
Malawi 98.5% 1.5%
Sierra Leone 98% 1.5%

[ChartsandGrafs]

So a piece of paper backed by sovereign force is a worthless guarantee, but your assumption that others will respect your rights without a piece of paper and no force is rock-solid?

What kind of point are you trying to make here? That the tyrannical government monopoly of the Soviet Union, which didn't give two turds about individual human rights, is a much safer bet than a state of competitive nature against other men whose very lives depend on respecting natural rights?

Uh, no.

Sure, people still fight and resort to violence, even war. That doesnt put it on the level of nature though. There's lots of evidence that violence has decreased through the centuries, and that the state has been an instrumental civilizing force in that.

I see no evidence for this. On the contrary, I see violence everywhere. In fact, violence has been institutionalized by the State. In a state of nature, no man would have the legitimate right to imprison and torture another man, but under the State, this is legal and considered legitimate. Everything the State does is through violence.

How could that - institutionalized threats, coercion, and violence - be considered a "civilizing force"?