The God problem (part 1)

[intaglio]

56. Discipline your thoughts

Begin with the original statement; it is made up of 2 parts:

1) None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity ...
2) ... based on solid religious faith.

The first part is acceptable to all, the second is a not. Mind you the first element might be considered a tautology as I cannot conceive of a society not based on ethics; we might not like those ethics but for that society those ethics would be acceptable, consider the societies of carnivores or herbivores that show up in science fiction.

Now look at your follow up statements:

I would not want to live in a society without the corrective of a sturdy band of non-believers

This is a horribly confused statement not overtly including a second unproven assertion; but there are the problems.
1) you are assuming that the "sturdy band of non-believers" is an exceptional case and wish us to accept that without discussion;
2) You also include in this statement the word "corrective" without saying what is to be corrected;
3) You certainly do not realise that your statement implies that we might be willing to live in a society without bands of believers, sturdy or otherwise.

I would not want to live in a society not based on the findings of scientific investigation without any religious connection

My emphasis is to show that ask us to accept that there are 2 classes of science, some that has a "religious connection" and some that has not. In this case you are attempting to smuggle your viewpoint of the world into the argument by adding a clause unnecessary to the statement.

I would not want to live a society without the arts, music, poetry, literature

Singular statement where you imply that "music, poetry, literature" are in a different class to "the arts"

I would not want to live in a society without the discipline of solid philosophical thought and discussion

Confused, what has discipline or solidity to do with "philosophical thought and discussion"? It is certain that you can have undisciplined philosophical discussion and it can certainly be enjoyable*

Now to restate your conditions for a livable society without the dross you wish us to accept without discussion;

None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity.
None of us would want to live in a society without either non-believers or believers.
None of us would want to live in a society without the arts; including music, poetry and literature.
None of us would want to live in a society without philosophical thought and discussion.

With a minor niggle about statement 2 in my case, these statements can be accepted as a basis for discussion.

==============================

* Ah the '60s and '70s you had to live through them - unfortunately you had to live through the bad bits as well ...

==============================