Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots ended up constructing another belief system

[Martin Peter Clarke]

So you're not actually talkin' to me but instead to some fictional me you use as a jumpin' off point to rage against the God you believe in and hate cuz He won't do things as you like.

Tell you what: cut out the middle man (me) and take your complaints to Him.

When you wanna talk with me: I'll be around.

I can want all I like. You can't.

I do not believe in God. I would know Love.

Your God is not love, why would I love it? No Biblical, orthodox, God on the sliding scale of metaphoric-literal is Love. None of which is reason for not believing in it. I deconstructed the God of the Bible until I could reconstruct the best case God, Love. Along with an emergent C21st minority, although the golden thread goes back to Paul and Jesus, via Barth, Lewis, MacDonald, Brunner, Schleieremacher, all the way back to the Father of Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, Clement penultimately to Paul and then Jesus. My experience of the emergent was another iteration of restorationism for me, which I'd held for 25 years. I can tell you the story of my God easily. I loved him all the way. The first iteration was 'slightly' incompetent as, like Lewis, it said, after post-mortem evangelism, 'Thy will be done'. And burned the reprobate. I still loved him to bits.

But none of that is why I don't believe in it.

I don't believe in it because it's not epistemically believable. Not because I see more of its flaws, its orthodox Lovelessness since I stopped believing. I wish to God I did know Love. But it is not knowable by any coherent, warranted, justified, true means at all.

Now you can, and will, continue to characterize me as a Satanist, as you have a blind spot to Love, your mental machinery is that distorted, but, in every sense, I . would . know . Love. We all would. None of us does or ever will.

Love is not the ground of infinite, eternal being.

You will now respond as if I had said none of this, and call white black.

What happened to you? That you cannot believe what I say as my truth? That you have no good will? It's certainly not your fault, there's nothing to forgive, and you can't explain it, so I'll have to continue to try and understand it as a psychological enigma.

What do I like? What do I love? And why, how do I believe in a God who can't do it? You know all things, can you know them to me about me, whom I obviously do not know. Don't worry, all questions are rhetorical to you I know. To be unanswered in your perfect knowing that cannot be known.

[henry quirk]

No , have not seen it yet I'll look right now thanks.

If you found it: your thoughts?

[MikeNovack]

Just noticed to jump in.

That's a compound statement in the title. Why necessarily accept morality has religious roots. We have been omnivorous social animals with culture for a very long time << our closest relatives, P. trogdolytes and P. paniscus are also omnivorous social animals with culture. << culture -- learned behaviors band specific, not biological inheritance >> We humans e born with a built in "learn a language". I suggest that are also born with a "learn how to be a good member of your culture". In other words, an intuitive system of morality suited to situations possible in a small band of individuals, all of whom know ech other, and who interact with each other repeatedly.

It would be too cruel an experiment to actually do, but I believe chimps and bonobos close enough to confirm by an infant swap. In other words I predict that a bonobo infant swapped into a chimp band would learn how to be a good chimp and vice versa << until puberty set in when their different sexual biologies would make a mess of things >>

So I think we have had "intuitive morality" for millions of years. We might have had religious concepts earlier but ones with gods able to impose moral codes not likely before the Neolithic.

[Belinda]

Just noticed to jump in.

That's a compound statement in the title. Why necessarily accept morality has religious roots. We have been omnivorous social animals with culture for a very long time << our closest relatives, P. trogdolytes and P. paniscus are also omnivorous social animals with culture. << culture -- learned behaviors band specific, not biological inheritance >> We humans e born with a built in "learn a language". I suggest that are also born with a "learn how to be a good member of your culture". In other words, an intuitive system of morality suited to situations possible in a small band of individuals, all of whom know ech other, and who interact with each other repeatedly.

It would be too cruel an experiment to actually do, but I believe chimps and bonobos close enough to confirm by an infant swap. In other words I predict that a bonobo infant swapped into a chimp band would learn how to be a good chimp and vice versa << until puberty set in when their different sexual biologies would make a mess of things >>

So I think we have had "intuitive morality" for millions of years. We might have had religious concepts earlier but ones with gods able to impose moral codes not likely before the Neolithic.

Organised religion is always and without exception used for social control by a power elite. The plain man whose ordinary human kindness is strong is better than the complete gamut of priests since time began.

[MikeNovack]

Organised religion is always and without exception used for social control by a power elite. The plain man whose ordinary human kindness is strong is better than the complete gamut of priests since time began.

But this MIGHT not be the fault of organized religion.

We only get to see societies that have a power elite in those cases where the power elite is successful in co-opting any other groupings in the society that has potential power.

Thus we might see organized religion in societies that have no power elite (and so not the case that being used)
But we will never see it in societies with a power elite where it is not being successfully used by that elite. That would mean the power elite had lost control, failed, will disappear, perhaps replaced by a different power elite.

Tell me, can you give me an example of a society with a power elite where there are one or more "organizations" with serious power but the power elite cannot co-op them to serve its purposes AND where that is stable (the power elite is not being threatened with destruction/replacement)

[Belinda]

Organised religion is always and without exception used for social control by a power elite. The plain man whose ordinary human kindness is strong is better than the complete gamut of priests since time began.

But this MIGHT not be the fault of organized religion.

We only get to see societies that have a power elite in those cases where the power elite is successful in co-opting any other groupings in the society that has potential power.

Thus we might see organized religion in societies that have no power elite (and so not the case that being used)
But we will never see it in societies with a power elite where it is not being successfully used by that elite. That would mean the power elite had lost control, failed, will disappear, perhaps replaced by a different power elite.

Tell me, can you give me an example of a society with a power elite where there are one or more "organizations" with serious power but the power elite cannot co-op them to serve its purposes AND where that is stable (the power elite is not being threatened with destruction/replacement)

The American Civil War ?

The Canadian colonies before they became independent of France , and Britain.

[Belinda]

Organised religion is always and without exception used for social control by a power elite. The plain man whose ordinary human kindness is strong is better than the complete gamut of priests since time began.

But this MIGHT not be the fault of organized religion.

We only get to see societies that have a power elite in those cases where the power elite is successful in co-opting any other groupings in the society that has potential power.

Thus we might see organized religion in societies that have no power elite (and so not the case that being used)
But we will never see it in societies with a power elite where it is not being successfully used by that elite. That would mean the power elite had lost control, failed, will disappear, perhaps replaced by a different power elite.

Tell me, can you give me an example of a society with a power elite where there are one or more "organizations" with serious power but the power elite cannot co-op them to serve its purposes AND where that is stable (the power elite is not being threatened with destruction/replacement)

*The American Civil War ?

*The Canadian colonies before they became independent of France , and Britain, and eventually became The Dominion of Canada.


*The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025. This amendment officially added Palestine Action to the UK’s list of proscribed terrorist organisations, effective 5 July 2025

[MikeNovack]

Organised religion is always and without exception used for social control by a power elite. The plain man whose ordinary human kindness is strong is better than the complete gamut of priests since time began.

Then discuss Iran.

I agree, organized religion will be used, co-oped by the power elite to serve its agenda IF IT CAN. If it can't, the power elite risks being displaced from its role controlling the society. Usually organized religion not so good at maintaining that control, but getting close to 50 years in Iran.