Bishop Harrison, a Christian preacher for 30 years, says he does not see his new neighbours as a threat, confidently predicting that their spiritual journey will eventually lead them to God.
I have never understood the need for people to fabricate religions. Atheism doesn't need such fripperies simply because it isn't, and never will be, a religion.
I feel like de Botton meant to say, "10 Virtues for Humanists".
While I'm completely behind most of the things he holds as virtues, ascribing them to something atheists should strive for is wrong, because those have no root in atheism, which is simply a lack of belief in the existence of a nonzero number of deities.
The second link just sounds fun. I don't think they should be calling it a church, but having that been said, I'm not so uptight about it that I wouldn't go.
Palindrome wrote: I have never understood the need for people to fabricate religions. Atheism doesn't need such fripperies simply because it isn't, and never will be, a religion.
There is something nice about coming together as a group of like minded individuals, especially in this time of increasing personal isolation. If it helps you discover a sense of community, wonder, or even just a little knowledge from the lectures I feel it could be a good thing.
Proving that any discussion of religion usual includes a song and dance. I honestly believe its just a case of having something to do or somewhere to be.
There is something nice about coming together as a group of like minded individuals, especially in this time of increasing personal isolation. If it helps you discover a sense of community, wonder, or even just a little knowledge from the lectures I feel it could be a good thing.
1. Resilience. Keeping going even when things are looking dark.
2. Empathy. The capacity to connect imaginatively with the sufferings and unique experiences of another person.
3. Patience. We should grow calmer and more forgiving by getting more realistic about how things actually tend to go.
4. Sacrifice. We won't ever manage to raise a family, love someone else or save the planet if we don't keep up with the art of sacrifice.
5. Politeness. Politeness is very linked to tolerance, the capacity to live alongside people whom one will never agree with, but at the same time, can't avoid.
6. Humour. Like anger, humour springs from disappointment, but it's disappointment optimally channelled.
7. Self-Awareness. To know oneself is to try not to blame others for one's troubles and moods; to have a sense of what's going on inside oneself, and what actually belongs to the world.
8. Forgiveness. It's recognising that living with others isn't possible without excusing errors.
9. Hope. Pessimism isn't necessarily deep, nor optimism shallow.
10. Confidence. Confidence isn't arrogance, it's based on a constant awareness of how short life is and how little we ultimately lose from risking everything.
I'm guessing his Bible is Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul.
Am I the only one sitting here thinking "You just the ten things human beings have been encouraging one another with since the dawn of time. Congratulations?" How are any of these things overlooked.
"It's not a church, it's a congregation of unreligious people."
And people wonder why there are people claiming atheism is a religion
"I think people need that sense of connectedness because everyone is so singular right now, and to be part of something, and to feel like you are part of something. That's what people are craving in the world."
I'm guessing his Bible is Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul.
Am I the only one sitting here thinking "You just the ten things human beings have been encouraging one another with since the dawn of time. Congratulations?" How are any of these things overlooked.
If they're not overlooked, why are they not practiced more often?
I'm guessing his Bible is Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul.
Am I the only one sitting here thinking "You just the ten things human beings have been encouraging one another with since the dawn of time. Congratulations?" How are any of these things overlooked.
If they're not overlooked, why are they not practiced more often?
Human nature? It is in us to do good, but it is also in us to do bad. The 10 things shouldn't even be a lesson only for atheists (or humanists), everybody could use a review of them from time to time. Religions =\= morality and there are plenty of atheists who are awesome people and plenty of religious folks who are horrible people.
There is something nice about coming together as a group of like minded individuals, especially in this time of increasing personal isolation. If it helps you discover a sense of community, wonder, or even just a little knowledge from the lectures I feel it could be a good thing.
Perhaps, but calling a church isn't helpful.
Calling it a church is offensive, but I'm not surprised. It just reinforces the stereotype.
I'm guessing his Bible is Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul.
Am I the only one sitting here thinking "You just the ten things human beings have been encouraging one another with since the dawn of time. Congratulations?" How are any of these things overlooked.
If they're not overlooked, why are they not practiced more often?
There is something nice about coming together as a group of like minded individuals, especially in this time of increasing personal isolation. If it helps you discover a sense of community, wonder, or even just a little knowledge from the lectures I feel it could be a good thing.
Perhaps, but calling a church isn't helpful.
Calling it a church is offensive, but I'm not surprised. It just reinforces the stereotype.
If you are going to have meetings and classes, what do the atheists want to call it? Club, fellowship, other?
Since atheism is the belief in nothing supernatural why are they having classes/fellowships/meetings etc on it at all? "There is no god or spiritual afterlife." Okay guys that concludes our sermon today. All they can really do is sit around smugly and do all the things a church does, claim their not a church, and bash the churches they claim their not... so... Ultimate Trolling Achieved?
There is something nice about coming together as a group of like minded individuals, especially in this time of increasing personal isolation. If it helps you discover a sense of community, wonder, or even just a little knowledge from the lectures I feel it could be a good thing.
Perhaps, but calling a church isn't helpful.
Calling it a church is offensive, but I'm not surprised. It just reinforces the stereotype.
If you are going to have meetings and classes, what do the atheists want to call it? Club, fellowship, other?
You answered your own question. Club, fellowship, other. NOT CHURCH THAT IS A SPECIFIC CHRISTIAN THING.
INteresting they don't call it a mosque. I guess they aren't into the inevitable reprisal.
My wife and I attended a unitarian universalism church for a month a few years back. I'm not entirely sure why but I guess she felt the need to attend some type of church. We grew up in primarily christian households; but neither of us could be considered "practicing" anything with regards to religion. Quite frankly, our kids are raised Agnostic much to our parents disgust.
It was a little different, with attendees ranging from jews, muslims, christians, atheists, and others.
We decided to attend a couple of introductory classes to see what it was about. In the last one we went to the "pastor" said,
"Once you understand what this group of people are about you will probably come to a point where you realize that there really isn't any reason to be here. No one here is going to claim to know the answers and no one is going to push their ideology on to you. Instead we will just sing a few songs, talk about the world today and be at peace with each other."
He was right, I can do that at home, so we stopped going. I already have friends and didn't need to donate to a building to get more. This sounds pretty much exactly like the "church" in those articles.
At the end of the day, everyone has their own set of beliefs (or lack thereof) which is an entirely personal thing. Just don't foist your ideas of life (or beyond) on me and I'll refrain from throwing mine in your face.
so what atheism is a religion now?
I don't believe in god nor do I go to any church or building at a set time and sing songs and have books read to me
i sleep on sunday
what do I call that now?!
Rainbow Dash wrote: so what atheism is a religion now?
I don't believe in god nor do I go to any church or building at a set time and sing songs and have books read to me
i sleep on sunday
what do I call that now?!
Rainbow Dash wrote: so what atheism is a religion now?
I don't believe in god nor do I go to any church or building at a set time and sing songs and have books read to me
i sleep on sunday
what do I call that now?!
Jurgen Habermas wrote:Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.
Don't bring history or reality into this! It is about having a strong opinion based on a very myopic view centered on modern religion, not an exploration of a core component of human existence spanning our recorded existence.
LordofHats wrote: Since atheism is the belief in nothing supernatural why are they having classes/fellowships/meetings etc on it at all? "There is no god or spiritual afterlife." Okay guys that concludes our sermon today. All they can really do is sit around smugly and do all the things a church does, claim their not a church, and bash the churches they claim their not... so... Ultimate Trolling Achieved?
Mockery. I was a Christian for over 20 years and now that I'm an atheist it's hard not to mock. Things like talking snakes/donkeys, floating zoos, giants, 900 year old men, ect, are really open game for mockery. I think a lot of it has to do with my feeling of being duped for the vast majority of my life. If something like this gather of mockery was near me, I'd definitely go at least a few times.
They sing popular songs, read classic books and give a lesson on science. Sounds more entertaining than singing songs about the same guy and reading the same book, no?
Oh, mockery is pretty big in the atheist community. You should go to the Oklahoma Free Thought Convention in June. I believe it's in your city actually.
There are Atheists and Militant Atheists. The Militant ones are those who just can't get on with their own life, feel the need to bash religion and belittle it at any given opportunity. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this, while he's a very intelligent man he comes across as a Militant Atheist douche sometimes. If you don't believe in a God, or follow any religion what does it matter that others do? I think as long as the law continues to move away from religious precedence there really isn't a problem.
In other news; The guy running the "Atheist Church" in London seems like a bellend.
Medium of Death wrote: There are Atheists and Militant Atheists. The Militant ones are those who just can't get on with their own life, feel the need to bash religion and belittle it at any given opportunity. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this, while he's a very intelligent man he comes across as a Militant Atheist douche sometimes. If you don't believe in a God, or follow any religion what does it matter that others do? I think as long as the law continues to move away from religious precedence there really isn't a problem.
In other news; The guy running the "Atheist Church" in London seems like a bellend.
And as a Christian I will also readily admit that militant Christians can be just as horrible and hurtful to the "brand".
donkey-caves are donkey-caves; no matter their creed, faith, or lack thereof.
Medium of Death wrote: There are Atheists and Militant Atheists. The Militant ones are those who just can't get on with their own life, feel the need to bash religion and belittle it at any given opportunity. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this, while he's a very intelligent man he comes across as a Militant Atheist douche sometimes. If you don't believe in a God, or follow any religion what does it matter that others do? I think as long as the law continues to move away from religious precedence there really isn't a problem.
In other news; The guy running the "Atheist Church" in London seems like a bellend.
And as a Christian I will also readily admit that militant Christians can be just as horrible and hurtful to the "brand".
donkey-caves are donkey-caves; no matter their creed, faith, or lack thereof.
Jurgen Habermas wrote:Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.
Why shouldn't secularists push their agenda? The religious have impact upon our lives and it is frankly undeserved, unjustifiable and unwelcome. You don't like mockery? Suck it up. You oppress people.
Albatross wrote: Why shouldn't people push their agenda? People have impact upon our lives and it is frankly undeserved, unjustifiable and unwelcome. You don't like mockery? Suck it up. People oppress people.
Fix'd.
The issue isn't secularists pushing their agenda, ignoring that a secularist and an atheist are not the same thing (though by their very nature atheists probably end up being secularists). The problem here is the perfect storm of self-satisfaction that these specific atheists are (made all the smugger by pretty much doing everything a religion does while claiming not to be a religion and espouses a world view that would make gathering in such a manner pointless).
Albatross wrote: Why shouldn't people push their agenda? People have impact upon our lives and it is frankly undeserved, unjustifiable and unwelcome. You don't like mockery? Suck it up. People oppress people.
Fix'd.
The issue isn't secularists pushing their agenda, ignoring that a secularist and an atheist are not the same thing (though by their very nature atheists probably end up being secularists). The problem here is the perfect storm of self-satisfaction that these specific atheists are (made all the smugger by pretty much doing everything a religion does while claiming not to be a religion and espouses a world view that would make gathering in such a manner pointless).
QFT. Atheists often cry wolf about being oppressed by religious people. A more enlightened response to say that of the many tools used by wicked people to oppress others religion is one including the state as church forms of secular atheism.
Also there tends to be too little distinction between 'oppression' because there happens to be an church in your town that actually doesn't do anything than hold Sunday services and fetes and radical mosques that want you to convert or die. It would be like lumping all politicians in with the fascists as 'the same'.
Nice, thanks for both stories. I'm not sure Boton's virtues offer anything really meaningful, other than rebranding humanist ideas into atheist ones, though I do like his emphasis on more positive, less dreary values.
The second story is an interesting one. I like the idea of non-religious community gatherings. I think it's a really important, human thing to desire ritual gatherings, and with a growing number of people not finding what they want in church attendance, I think it's good that non-religious organisations might offer a non-religious gathering. That said, I'm not sure of the value in branding it atheist specifically. Is it not possible for a person of faith to come along because they're interested in Dark Matter? Wouldn't it be better to call it a non-religious gathering*?
*Well, something a lot catchier than 'non-religious gathering'. You can see why I'm not in marketing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lt. Coldfire wrote: Mockery. I was a Christian for over 20 years and now that I'm an atheist it's hard not to mock. Things like talking snakes/donkeys, floating zoos, giants, 900 year old men, ect, are really open game for mockery. I think a lot of it has to do with my feeling of being duped for the vast majority of my life. If something like this gather of mockery was near me, I'd definitely go at least a few times.
To all the Christians out there Lt. Coldfire's story there should read as warning bell about why insisting that the bible is literally true drives away people who might otherwise be good Christians. Insist that the ludicrous must be believed, and that it is just as important as the moral message, and you lose people from the faith.
You can interpret it any way you like, but I think that if it's divinely inspired by a perfect deity that it should be fairly clear what the message is. The fact that it can be interpreted to the point that 40,000 denominations are warranted is a testament to it's unreliability.
Keep in mind though, Sebster, a lot of people take the Bible as truth (since it says so in the scripture. Well... again, depending on how you translate it). My Grandma read the Bible 8 times through, believed every word and died believing every word. Stories like Noah's ark and the talking snake are routinely tought to impressionable young children around the world. Most Christians simply interpret it into whatever makes believing in it easier for them.
Both of my parents went to church from a very young age, both are in their 60's now. They were shocked when I told them I had become an atheist. Of course we had many talks and at one point my Dad confessed to me that he never even considered atheism as a choice. Sad eh? A 62 year old man not realizing he had a choice as to whether or not to believe in the Bible. It's an indoctrination in some parts of the country.
Lt. Coldfire wrote: You can interpret it any way you like, but I think that if it's divinely inspired by a perfect deity that it should be fairly clear what the message is. The fact that it can be interpreted to the point that 40,000 denominations are warranted is a testament to it's unreliability.
Keep in mind though, Sebster, a lot of people take the Bible as truth (since it says so in the scripture. Well... again, depending on how you translate it). My Grandma read the Bible 8 times through, believed every word and died believing every word. Stories like Noah's ark and the talking snake are routinely tought to impressionable young children around the world. Most Christians simply interpret it into whatever makes believing in it easier for them.
Both of my parents went to church from a very young age, both are in their 60's now. They were shocked when I told them I had become an atheist. Of course we had many talks and at one point my Dad confessed to me that he never even considered atheism as a choice. Sad eh? A 62 year old man not realizing he had a choice as to whether or not to believe in the Bible. It's an indoctrination in some parts of the country.
Yeah. I think the problem really comes from teaching 'what is' rather than 'what I believe'. And then when teaching that, teaching only one very narrow, literalist view of Christianity. The faith is presented with a 6,000 year old earth, talking snake, boat with every animal on board, and you accept all of that as well as Jesus, or you leave Christianity entirely.
The idea that the bible is a complex, subjective text with many possible interpretations, because it is representing a complex, subjective world (both physical and spiritual) just isn't allowed as an option. And that means for a lot of folk, when it becomes clear that a lot of the stories just make no sense given what we know of the world, people leave the faith entirely.
I mean, I'm not trying to speculate too much on your position, or question your choice at all, I'm just saying from a few things I've read it seems a lot of people go straight from rejecting the young earth, creationist style christianity they were taught, straight to rejecting Christianity entirely.
I can understand the warning about I driving away. I just don't agree with his determination that it is okay to demonize and mock the whole of Christianity because be feels duped by a very specific subgroup.
I don't hold all atheists accountable for the actions of some militant jerks.
d-usa wrote: I can understand the warning about I driving away. I just don't agree with his determination that it is okay to demonize and mock the whole of Christianity because be feels duped by a very specific subgroup.
I don't hold all atheists accountable for the actions of some militant jerks.
I agree exactly. I don't hold Christians accountable for the actions of some obnoxious jerks, either.
Oh god, those two articles... I don't even.
First off, commandments, seriously? In atheism? It just doesn't work.
One of the beautiful things about atheism is being able to choose what's right and wrong and no one is gonna torture you for all eternity. We rely on laws and human good will to make society a nice place. There should'nt be any commandments. How could these commandments reasonably apply to all atheist? There is no uniting factor to keep atheists together.
Secondly, an atheist church. Really?
Why would you want to hold your disbelieving sessions in an old church? Why would you need to have atheism meetings to begin with? There isn't much to say. In fact, the meetings probably doesn't have anything to do with atheism at all except for the clear lack of god. I get a lack of god from my school too, does that make my school an atheist school?
Nah, it doesn't sound like this church has anything to do with atheism at all, unless they actually spend their entire sessions talking about how god didn't create everything. If they don't then they should just call it a meeting. Perhaps "meeting with no religious strings" if they push it. And they should probably have them in a place with less religious significance, like a theatre or something.
Sigh. Sorry for the rant everyone. I just got so butthurt and mad and needed to get it all out.
I guess this is how it feels to be offended. Oh my.
d-usa wrote: That's the stupidest insult ever, you don't even believe in hell.
Oh yeah,
Well played.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The CF wrote: Oh god, those two articles... I don't even.
First off, commandments, seriously? In atheism? It just doesn't work.
If you read the list, you'll see that commandments is really just playing with words. They're more like principle or suggested virtues. They're not presented as unquestionable religious orders that must be followed or else, but are presented as, as you say later on, 'human good'.
The point being that one not only can but should discuss what makes for a virtuous life, whether they are religious or not. If a person is not religion and so doesn't get their ethical principles from there, some kind of humanist principles could be beneficial.
Albatross wrote: Why shouldn't people push their agenda? People have impact upon our lives and it is frankly undeserved, unjustifiable and unwelcome. You don't like mockery? Suck it up. People oppress people.
Fix'd.
The issue isn't secularists pushing their agenda, ignoring that a secularist and an atheist are not the same thing (though by their very nature atheists probably end up being secularists).
No, it isn't 'fix'd'. You don't get to just hand-wave the years of ignorance and servitude religion has kept the human race in. The same goes for all the women denied control over their own bodies, and same-sex couples denied equality. That is very real oppression and it has its basis in religious dogma. And that's just here in the West, today.
I didn't say that secularists and atheists were the same thing, I was pointing out the real cause for people like Frazzled to desperately find something in this story to be offended about - they feel threatened by the secular agenda. Good. They should be. We are a threat to their way of life.
The problem here is the perfect storm of self-satisfaction that these specific atheists are (made all the smugger by pretty much doing everything a religion does while claiming not to be a religion and espouses a world view that would make gathering in such a manner pointless).
Once again, suck it up. We haven't started killing people or anything.
Once again, suck it up. We haven't started killing people or anything.
Yet....
We have already had secular atheist society under communism and it stinks. All the bigotry but none of the benefits. the early church hadn't killed anyone either, its what comes afterwards.
One of the great tragedies that has occured is for atheism to hijack the word 'reason', what they should be using to define their outlook is 'dogma', especially those who call themselves an enemy of religion, no matter how peaceful they appear. Sure Hitchens and our Albatross here arent/werent going to persecute them. But when atheism wants societal change and society doesn't change the way they want it someone will move to stage two and apply pressure. To some extent we are already there.
Religious hatred is the result of political pressures to use the human mass that the movement contains as a powerbase. Sooner or later this is wielded against people of opposing viewpoints. The big disadvantage the human race faces with atheism being the religious-political unit is that it has nothing positive to offer. Other religious choices offer a faith in return for rejection of other choices, atheism only offers the rejection of other choices, so you have the apostasy without the community.
This might explain why it took a considerable time for most major religions to turn from an initial benign stage to one where the religious movement was subverted for political ends. With the atheist state the people behind the religious preferences descended into savagery almost immediately. In fact I can't think of any atheist state which can can be described as benign, whether from the time of the French Communards or Maoist China.
Medium of Death wrote:There are Atheists and Militant Atheists. The Militant ones are those who just can't get on with their own life, feel the need to bash religion and belittle it at any given opportunity. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this, while he's a very intelligent man he comes across as a Militant Atheist douche sometimes. If you don't believe in a God, or follow any religion what does it matter that others do? I think as long as the law continues to move away from religious precedence there really isn't a problem.
The thing is, as much as someone like Dawkins can come off as an donkey-cave at times, at the very least, the input of people like him is important as a voice to stand up against absolutely silly and unreasonable things that do affect other people. Things like religious indoctrination and education, especially in secular environments (I'm sure we all know what discussion I'm getting at, and that's not one for here) are things can get off a lot more freely without a voice to call them out.
sebster wrote:
Lt. Coldfire wrote: Mockery. I was a Christian for over 20 years and now that I'm an atheist it's hard not to mock. Things like talking snakes/donkeys, floating zoos, giants, 900 year old men, ect, are really open game for mockery. I think a lot of it has to do with my feeling of being duped for the vast majority of my life. If something like this gather of mockery was near me, I'd definitely go at least a few times.
To all the Christians out there Lt. Coldfire's story there should read as warning bell about why insisting that the bible is literally true drives away people who might otherwise be good Christians. Insist that the ludicrous must be believed, and that it is just as important as the moral message, and you lose people from the faith.
Yes, I find this to be quite notable. As someone who's an atheist that was raised without any religious background stressed upon me by my parents (my grandparents were quite religious, and my grandfather was and still is an incredibly bigoted religious old coot, but their impact on my beliefs is negligible), and I find myself to be much more tolerant and respectful of the beliefs of others than other atheists I knew who grew up with religion in their lives.
All that said, the idea of an "atheist church" is stupid. The only thing atheism contests is the absence of a god. There is literally no other underlying principle, which is why you can have atheists who still follow a religion. Granted, in some areas where secularism is persecuted by the public at large, it would be useful to have communities for people to get support if their facing alienation from their friends and families for a disparity or lack of religious values, but there's no need for a supposedly secular circle jerk. What's more, interests in things like science and books have nothing to do with atheism, and should be open to all people regardless of religious point of view.
Orlanth wrote: . In fact I can't think of any atheist state which can can be described as benign, whether from the time of the French Communards or Maoist China.
While I can't think of any atheist state which has had the stability to be benign. Its easy to claim that for example Maoist China or the USSR were evil becuase they were atheists yet that completely ignores the real reasons why these regimes were so oppressive.
sebster wrote: [quote=d-usa 505414 5252839
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The CF wrote: Oh god, those two articles... I don't even.
First off, commandments, seriously? In atheism? It just doesn't work.
If you read the list, you'll see that commandments is really just playing with words. They're more like principle or suggested virtues. They're not presented as unquestionable religious orders that must be followed or else, but are presented as, as you say later on, 'human good'.
The point being that one not only can but should discuss what makes for a virtuous life, whether they are religious or not. If a person is not religion and so doesn't get their ethical principles from there, some kind of humanist principles could be beneficial.
I understand that. As an example, take me. I never had anything religious in my life. atheist/agnostic parents, atheist/agnostic country. I'm not even baptized and have never had any virtues instilled on me by religion, and yet I've always been caring and nice towards everyone. And that's not because I'm an atheist, hat's because I have values regarding human kindness, influenced by humanism and utilitarianism. But those commandment have nothing do to with atheism, it's just about being nice. Atheism is not about being nice, it's simply about not believing in god.
And if someone really needs to have ethical virtues to follow because they can't be nice if they're atheists, let them be humanist atheists.
The whole concept of having virtues in atheism is all too alien and illogical for me. Makes no sense and the guy who thought it was a good idea should be ashamed. A good idea would have been to promote humanism in atheist communities, not make atheism and humanism the same thing.
To all the Christians out there Lt. Coldfire's story there should read as warning bell about why insisting that the bible is literally true drives away people who might otherwise be good Christians. Insist that the ludicrous must be believed, and that it is just as important as the moral message, and you lose people from the faith.
Sebster, true Christianity is not a numbers game. It's not about compromising the word of God to gain more converts.
(Mat 7:14) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
We have already had secular atheist society under communism and it stinks. All the bigotry but none of the benefits. the early church hadn't killed anyone either, its what comes afterwards.
This might explain why it took a considerable time for most major religions to turn from an initial benign stage to one where the religious movement was subverted for political ends. With the atheist state the people behind the religious preferences descended into savagery almost immediately. In fact I can't think of any atheist state which can can be described as benign, whether from the time of the French Communards or Maoist China.
No. All that those examples prove is that absolute power corrupts, absolutely, and that goes for the Church's power as well. There's no reason a secular government set up so that no single person or clique has absolute control cannot work.
In fact, quite a few western european countries are very much trending towards that ideal.
The biggest problem I have with religions (as a rule of thumb, it's no law of nature!), is that they tend towards wanting, and sometimes outright demanding, secular power "for other people's own good". The ends justify the means, and all that.
One of the great tragedies that has occured is for atheism to hijack the word 'reason', what they should be using to define their outlook is 'dogma', especially those who call themselves an enemy of religion, no matter how peaceful they appear. Sure Hitchens and our Albatross here arent/werent going to persecute them. But when atheism wants societal change and society doesn't change the way they want it someone will move to stage two and apply pressure. To some extent we are already there.
Religious hatred is the result of political pressures to use the human mass that the movement contains as a powerbase. Sooner or later this is wielded against people of opposing viewpoints. The big disadvantage the human race faces with atheism being the religious-political unit is that it has nothing positive to offer.
All secularists want, as far as I can tell, is a level playing field. I want to live my life free from your influence, because I find what you believe to be preposterous, insofar as it relates to 'god' as the motivator for doing/not doing something. Now, I'm a straight white male, living in the UK, so I can pretty much live my life free from religious interference. However, if I was a woman living in the American south, or a homosexual living in almost all of the USA (correct me if I'm wrong here, chaps), then religion would impact upon my life even if I rejected its teachings completely. That is completely unfair. It makes me sick to my stomach, as do the people who defend such a situation. I despise them utterly. Furthermore, religious organisations should receive absolutely zero in terms of subsidies or tax-breaks from the state. If a church can stay open on it's own, then fine. If not, sell it and turn it into apartments, or a pub, or something. In fact, I refused to go to a gig last year because it was being held in a church. The problem I have is that some churches in England are using ideas like this in order to bring funds in, so they can stay open. I'd rather see them closed, and I would suggest all Atheists boycott such events.
That said, I have absolutely no problem at all with people being religious in their personal life - that's their choice. Neither do I share the distaste that some Atheist commentators express for those who bring up their children according to religious doctrine. I don't agree with it at all, but then I don't agree with people who give their children something equally unhealthy and damaging, such as fizzy drinks and junk food, but as a parent that's their right. It's not 'abuse', and when Hitchens or Dawkins say it is, they come off a little hysterical.
The reason it is being held in an old church is probably threefold: it is suited to holding gatherings of people, there are plenty of empty ones about as people abandon religion and probably to poke a bit of fun at religion.
As to why it isn't called an athiest mosque - probably for the same reasons christians in the west always get up in arms for being 'targeted' above and beyond other religions groups - they are the largest group with the largest impact on society and people in general.
SilverMK2 wrote: The reason it is being held in an old church is probably threefold: it is suited to holding gatherings of people, there are plenty of empty ones about as people abandon religion and probably to poke a bit of fun at religion.
No, this was still a functioning church. Apparently it's becoming a 'thing'. Manchester Cathedral does it too - I got offered guest-list for Alicia Keys there last year, but turned it down.
Albatross wrote: You don't get to just hand-wave the years of ignorance and servitude religion has kept the human race in.
Who is trying to hand wave it away? Maybe instead of living in the past you should catch up to the present.
The same goes for all the women denied control over their own bodies, and same-sex couples denied equality. That is very real oppression and it has its basis in religious dogma. And that's just here in the West, today.
And lets not pretend the religious are the only oppressors in the world. There was a church near here that applied to the city counsel for a permit to build a church on some property they were prepared to purchase (they'd been holding services in a local school) and the permit was denied. One of the counselors (I quote) said "your freaks can go somewhere else." She was a very vocal atheist in a very liberal county, so everyone knew who on the counsel made sure that permit didn't pass and why. As the number of atheists rise, the chances for them to start oppressing others only goes higher. The UN (and I hate the UN ) has even already recognized the growing risk of discrimination against Christians in Scandinavia at the hands of extremist atheist groups. Get off the high horse.
I didn't say that secularists and atheists were the same thing, I was pointing out the real cause for people like Frazzled to desperately find something in this story to be offended about - they feel threatened by the secular agenda. Good. They should be. We are a threat to their way of life.
SilverMK2 wrote: The reason it is being held in an old church is probably threefold: it is suited to holding gatherings of people, there are plenty of empty ones about as people abandon religion and probably to poke a bit of fun at religion.
No, this was still a functioning church. Apparently it's becoming a 'thing'. Manchester Cathedral does it too - I got offered guest-list for Alicia Keys there last year, but turned it down.
And not only because she's poop.
The one in the OP was deconsecrated. Sorry, I was not replying to you - just the people on previous pages taking about using a church for the meeting ws insuling and how they wouldn't call it an 'atheist mosque/temple/etc".
To all the Christians out there Lt. Coldfire's story there should read as warning bell about why insisting that the bible is literally true drives away people who might otherwise be good Christians. Insist that the ludicrous must be believed, and that it is just as important as the moral message, and you lose people from the faith.
Sebster, true Christianity is not a numbers game. It's not about compromising the word of God to gain more converts.
And just who are you to define "true Christianity"?
SilverMK2 wrote: The reason it is being held in an old church is probably threefold: it is suited to holding gatherings of people, there are plenty of empty ones about as people abandon religion and probably to poke a bit of fun at religion.
No, this was still a functioning church. Apparently it's becoming a 'thing'. Manchester Cathedral does it too - I got offered guest-list for Alicia Keys there last year, but turned it down.
And not only because she's poop.
Acoustics maybe?
Those old churches are supposed to have pretty good acoustics due to the whole lack of microphones that the middle ages suffered from.
To all the Christians out there Lt. Coldfire's story there should read as warning bell about why insisting that the bible is literally true drives away people who might otherwise be good Christians. Insist that the ludicrous must be believed, and that it is just as important as the moral message, and you lose people from the faith.
Sebster, true Christianity is not a numbers game. It's not about compromising the word of God to gain more converts.
(Mat 7:14) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
GG
It's a fascinating thing to see, especially these days, how few people seem to understand the notion of unchanging, eternal truth, and how many are quick to counsel that these ancient faiths can really get with things by aping the vicissitudes of modern culture. The idea that people embrace ideals that are not subject to popular consent seems alien to many, that the popularity of a thing is irrelevant to its value.
To use a less theological example, consider the invective hurled at two more temporal organizations: the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and the NRA (National Rifle Association). These are absolutist organization, existing to protect, and therefore resist any restrictions on the First* and Second amendments (respectively).
Could the ACLU be more popular if they stopped defending, say, Neo-Nazis? Or standing up for the right to make "virtual" child pornography? Perhaps. Same for the NRA and complaints against it. But that misses the point entirely: these organizations do not exist to defend these things because they are popular, but because these things are unpopular.
So it is also with religions. Heck, ask an Atheist: in the days of superstition and magical thinking, when Atheists were rare as hens' teeth, would people have counseled Atheists that they ought to amend their beliefs to include some accommodation for ghosts, or witchcraft, or hedge sorcery, you know, to get some butts in the seats?
*The ACLU also defends other rights, but they are best known for their seminal defenses of Free Speech.
Could the ACLU be more popular if they stopped defending, say, Neo-Nazis? Or standing up for the right to make "virtual" child pornography? Perhaps. Same for the NRA and complaints against it. But that misses the point entirely: these organizations do not exist to defend these things because they are popular, but because these things are unpopular.
I think that's a bit idealistic. The ACLU and the NRA exist because people are willing to support them. They thrive on popularity within, at the very least, a segment of the population.
So it is also with religions. Heck, ask an Atheist: in the days of superstition and magical thinking, when Atheists were rare as hens' teeth, would people have counseled Atheists that they ought to amend their beliefs to include some accommodation for ghosts, or witchcraft, or hedge sorcery, you know, to get some butts in the seats?
I mean, that's pretty much what happened. Though it was more a matter of keeping butts out of certain, painful seats.
To all the Christians out there Lt. Coldfire's story there should read as warning bell about why insisting that the bible is literally true drives away people who might otherwise be good Christians. Insist that the ludicrous must be believed, and that it is just as important as the moral message, and you lose people from the faith.
Sebster, true Christianity is not a numbers game. It's not about compromising the word of God to gain more converts.
(Mat 7:14) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
GG
It's a fascinating thing to see, especially these days, how few people seem to understand the notion of unchanging, eternal truth, and how many are quick to counsel that these ancient faiths can really get with things by aping the vicissitudes of modern culture. The idea that people embrace ideals that are not subject to popular consent seems alien to many, that the popularity of a thing is irrelevant to its value.
To use a less theological example, consider the invective hurled at two more temporal organizations: the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and the NRA (National Rifle Association). These are absolutist organization, existing to protect, and therefore resist any restrictions on the First* and Second amendments (respectively).
Could the ACLU be more popular if they stopped defending, say, Neo-Nazis? Or standing up for the right to make "virtual" child pornography? Perhaps. Same for the NRA and complaints against it. But that misses the point entirely: these organizations do not exist to defend these things because they are popular, but because these things are unpopular.
So it is also with religions. Heck, ask an Atheist: in the days of superstition and magical thinking, when Atheists were rare as hens' teeth, would people have counseled Atheists that they ought to amend their beliefs to include some accommodation for ghosts, or witchcraft, or hedge sorcery, you know, to get some butts in the seats?
*The ACLU also defends other rights, but they are best known for their seminal defenses of Free Speech.
We're not arguing that this theoretical "eternal truth" should change, we're arguing that it was never eternal nor the truth to start with.
There's also a difference between debating Constitutional Law and debating Theology; in Constitutional Law there is a formally recognised arbiter of what is right and what is not, whereas in Theology there's about 7 billion arbiters of what is right and what is not.
In closing, one should absolutely stand up for ideals that one values strongly, but not without being prepared to be told just how out of touch with the world they are.
To all the Christians out there Lt. Coldfire's story there should read as warning bell about why insisting that the bible is literally true drives away people who might otherwise be good Christians. Insist that the ludicrous must be believed, and that it is just as important as the moral message, and you lose people from the faith.
Sebster, true Christianity is not a numbers game. It's not about compromising the word of God to gain more converts.
(Mat 7:14) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
GG
It's a fascinating thing to see, especially these days, how few people seem to understand the notion of unchanging, eternal truth, and how many are quick to counsel that these ancient faiths can really get with things by aping the vicissitudes of modern culture. The idea that people embrace ideals that are not subject to popular consent seems alien to many, that the popularity of a thing is irrelevant to its value.
To use a less theological example, consider the invective hurled at two more temporal organizations: the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and the NRA (National Rifle Association). These are absolutist organization, existing to protect, and therefore resist any restrictions on the First* and Second amendments (respectively).
Could the ACLU be more popular if they stopped defending, say, Neo-Nazis? Or standing up for the right to make "virtual" child pornography? Perhaps. Same for the NRA and complaints against it. But that misses the point entirely: these organizations do not exist to defend these things because they are popular, but because these things are unpopular.
So it is also with religions. Heck, ask an Atheist: in the days of superstition and magical thinking, when Atheists were rare as hens' teeth, would people have counseled Atheists that they ought to amend their beliefs to include some accommodation for ghosts, or witchcraft, or hedge sorcery, you know, to get some butts in the seats?
*The ACLU also defends other rights, but they are best known for their seminal defenses of Free Speech.
We're not arguing that this theoretical "eternal truth" should change, we're arguing that it was never eternal nor the truth to start with.
There's also a difference between debating Constitutional Law and debating Theology; in Constitutional Law there is a formally recognised arbiter of what is right and what is not, whereas in Theology there's about 7 billion arbiters of what is right and what is not.
In closing, one should absolutely stand up for ideals that one values strongly, but not without being prepared to be told just how out of touch with the world they are.
This is such a perfect reply. In two sentences* the entire argument is carved to the bone and laid hollow: those who complain about "how out of touch with the world" the principled are, have first disregarded the importance of those principles being discussed. As a simple rational proposition, such complaints would seem rather properly to be ignored.
Aside from the issue of intellectual honesty, there is a rather practical element to these things as well: when establishments follow the advice of those that want said establishments to become more in "touch with the world", said establishments find their former supporters tend to be... displeased. Whether it's New Coke or the Anglican Church welcoming in homosexuals, disregarding your current supporters in an effort to court those that recently scorned your establishment can have negative consequences.
*(Excluding the middle one, which is based on a common misapprehension of the role of the American Supreme Court.)
All my faction wants, as far as I can tell, is a level playing field*. I want to live my life free from your influence, because I find what you believe to be preposterous, insofar as it relates to your ideology as motivator for doing/not doing something. Now, I'm a straight white male, living in the UK, so I can pretty much live my life free from your interference. However, if I was someone else living in almost all of the <insert nation name here>(correct me if I'm wrong here, chaps), then your belief system would impact upon my life even if I rejected its teachings completely. That is completely unfair. It makes me sick to my stomach, as do the people who defend such a situation. I despise them utterly. Furthermore, rival organisations should receive absolutely zero in terms of subsidies or tax-breaks from the state. If an institution can stay open on it's own, then fine. If not, sell it and turn it into something else. In fact, I refused to go to a gig last year because it was being held in an unclean venue.** The problem I have is that some rival belief state buldings in England are using ideas like this in order to bring funds in, so they can stay open. I'd rather see them closed, and I would suggest all my fellow believers boycott such events.
The above reads equally true for any fanatic creed.
Orlanth wrote: . In fact I can't think of any atheist state which can can be described as benign, whether from the time of the French Communards or Maoist China.
While I can't think of any atheist state which has had the stability to be benign. Its easy to claim that for example Maoist China or the USSR were evil becuase they were atheists yet that completely ignores the real reasons why these regimes were so oppressive.
One of the things mentioned in the article is that the UK is the most non-religious state in western Europe. I don't know if the UK is more or less stable and benign than the USA, Greece, Iceland, etc.
This is such a perfect reply. In two sentences* the entire argument is carved to the bone and laid hollow: those who complain about "how out of touch with the world" the principled are, have first disregarded the importance of those principles being discussed. As a simple rational proposition, such complaints would seem rather properly to be ignored.
Aside from the issue of intellectual honesty, there is a rather practical element to these things as well: when establishments follow the advice of those that want said establishments to become more in "touch with the world", said establishments find their former supporters tend to be... displeased. Whether it's New Coke or the Anglican Church welcoming in homosexuals, disregarding your current supporters in an effort to court those that recently scorned your establishment can have negative consequences.
*(Excluding the middle one, which is based on a common misapprehension of the role of the American Supreme Court.)
Explain it to me then. Why is it so important to de facto oppress gay people? Furthermore, if the only solution one can come up with in a debate is "la la la can't hear you!", who's being intellectually dishonest? It might just as well be the "principled" who are overestimating the importance of the principle being discussed, but because you're infallible you won't even consider that you could be wrong? An idea or concept does not have to be a good one just because it's old and still in use; the Code of Hammurabi, for example, predates every legal system in the world and yet we don't cling to it just because it's old.
Ultimately the duty of a Christian, as stated in the Great Commission, is to convert people to Christianity and to teach them what Jesus taught the Apostles. Last I looked Jesus was silent on the issue of Homosexuality. Even the Bible itself changes stance; Abraham's brother was married to his niece. Fast forward to Leviticus and this is strictly forbidden.
We're not dismissing the argument out of hand, we're dismissing it because it makes absolutely zero sense otherwise. You are, of course, welcome to believe what you want, but the majority of us apparently find it easier to believe a geogist's account of the age of the Earth than that of a book full of metaphores and symbolism. Said book is still useful, but considering the eleventyfive billion ways it can and has been read it takes a lot of hubris to claim that ones own way is the only right way.
As a side note, if the SCOTUS declares something (un)constitutional, who's going to legitimately say otherwise?
This is such a perfect reply. In two sentences* the entire argument is carved to the bone and laid hollow: those who complain about "how out of touch with the world" the principled are, have first disregarded the importance of those principles being discussed. As a simple rational proposition, such complaints would seem rather properly to be ignored.
Aside from the issue of intellectual honesty, there is a rather practical element to these things as well: when establishments follow the advice of those that want said establishments to become more in "touch with the world", said establishments find their former supporters tend to be... displeased. Whether it's New Coke or the Anglican Church welcoming in homosexuals, disregarding your current supporters in an effort to court those that recently scorned your establishment can have negative consequences.
*(Excluding the middle one, which is based on a common misapprehension of the role of the American Supreme Court.)
Explain it to me then. Why is it so important to de facto oppress gay people?
The reason christianity has a problem with Gay people is because Christianity took Aristotle's Natural Law(natural use=good, unnatural use=bad) to its logical extreme.(vagina+penis=good, everything else=bad) It has little to do with the largely disregarded old testament and absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.
xole wrote: The reason christianity has a problem with Gay people is because Christianity took Aristotle's Natural Law(natural use=good, unnatural use=bad) to its logical extreme.(vagina+penis=good, everything else=bad) It has little to do with the largely disregarded old testament and absolutely nothing to do with Jesus.
Why disregard the Old Testament? Jesus approves of the Old Testament: Matthew 5:17: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."
Regardless, all scripture is inspired by God, is it not?
I think his point is that while the Bible may have its opinion on homosexuality, that's not necessarily the reason that Christians today oppose it. Have you seen that study where they gave Christians a test and found that they got 80% of Bible content related questions wrong? A lot of Christians have never even read it.
LordofHats wrote: I think his point is that while the Bible may have its opinion on homosexuality, that's not necessarily the reason that Christians today oppose it. Have you seen that study where they gave Christians a test and found that they got 80% of Bible content related questions wrong? A lot of Christians have never even read it.
"And Jesus did overturn the tables of the money lenders profaning the temples with their greed. He turned to them and spake thusly 'All your temple are belong to me' and the money lenders did flee before him with much wailing and gnashing of teeth they did cry 'Someone set us up the bomb!'" - Jesus and the money lenders Jeff 6:9
LordofHats wrote: I think his point is that while the Bible may have its opinion on homosexuality, that's not necessarily the reason that Christians today oppose it. Have you seen that study where they gave Christians a test and found that they got 80% of Bible content related questions wrong? A lot of Christians have never even read it.
"And Jesus did overturn the tables of the money lenders profaning the temples with their greed. He turned to them and spake thusly 'All your temple are belong to me' and the money lenders did flee before him with much wailing and gnashing of teeth they did cry ' Someone set us up the bomb!'" - Jesus and the money lenders Jeff 6:9
Regardless, all scripture is inspired by God, is it not?
Well, this more or less does the job for me on that one.
Hmm... I'm at work so I can't view the video, but you should be able to answer the question with the Bible on which Christianity is based.
2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."
I suppose I should be able to answer the question of whether or not all scripture is inspired by God. You know what? For fun, I'm going to go with yes.
Well, at least one piece of clothing you own is made out of two different kinds of cloth, so I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever worked on the sabbath, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever worshipped one of the hosts of heaven, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever committed Blasphemy, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever struck or cursed at your parents, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you were a stubborn or rebellious son(but not daughter), I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If your father finds you to be a drunkard and/or a glutton, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
I think I'm missing a few things...oh well. I think these should cover just about everyone I think.
And then there's a whole host of other things I'm only morally obligated to exile you for.
Admittedly, I'm not sure I'm the one who's supposed to be doing the killing on all of these. I think I may need to get a priest involved at some point, or parents. And if they disagree with the sentence, well, I'm morally obligated to kill them.
So...can we get a line going? I think this may take a while.
Regardless, all scripture is inspired by God, is it not?
Well, this more or less does the job for me on that one.
Hmm... I'm at work so I can't view the video, but you should be able to answer the question with the Bible on which Christianity is based.
2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..."
I suppose I should be able to answer the question of whether or not all scripture is inspired by God. You know what? For fun, I'm going to go with yes.
Well, at least one piece of clothing you own is made out of two different kinds of cloth, so I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever worked on the sabbath, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever worshipped one of the hosts of heaven, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever committed Blasphemy, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you've ever struck or cursed at your parents, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If you were a stubborn or rebellious son(but not daughter), I'm morally obligated to kill you.
If your father finds you to be a drunkard and/or a glutton, I'm morally obligated to kill you.
I think I'm missing a few things...oh well. I think these should cover just about everyone I think.
And then there's a whole host of other things I'm only morally obligated to exile you for.
Admittedly, I'm not sure I'm the one who's supposed to be doing the killing on all of these. I think I may need to get a priest involved at some point, or parents. And if they disagree with the sentence, well, I'm morally obligated to kill them.
So...can we get a line going? I think this may take a while.
Don't forget shellfish of any kind! Clams, crabs, lobster, shrimp, mussels....
Well I'll just pop off and do myself in, I've done most of that in addition to being a filthy pagan.
1) Atheists talking about how literal interpretations are stupid and the reason why some atheists are angry at Christians.
2) Atheists then taking a literal interpretation to say that they have a moral obligation to kill people.
3) the usual "Christiand are bad because they don't follow Jewish laws".
All my faction wants, as far as I can tell, is a level playing field*. I want to live my life free from your influence, because I find what you believe to be preposterous, insofar as it relates to your ideology as motivator for doing/not doing something. Now, I'm a straight white male, living in the UK, so I can pretty much live my life free from your interference. However, if I was someone else living in almost all of the <insert nation name here>(correct me if I'm wrong here, chaps), then your belief system would impact upon my life even if I rejected its teachings completely. That is completely unfair. It makes me sick to my stomach, as do the people who defend such a situation. I despise them utterly. Furthermore, rival organisations should receive absolutely zero in terms of subsidies or tax-breaks from the state. If an institution can stay open on it's own, then fine. If not, sell it and turn it into something else. In fact, I refused to go to a gig last year because it was being held in an unclean venue.** The problem I have is that some rival belief state buldings in England are using ideas like this in order to bring funds in, so they can stay open. I'd rather see them closed, and I would suggest all my fellow believers boycott such events.
The above reads equally true for any fanatic creed.
*yeah, right.
Wow, where to start?
Yes, as a secularist I want an equal playing field. The fairest de facto setting is for religion to play no part in public life, in order that no religious view be privileged over any other. By the same token, religious people should be absolutely free to worship which ever god/s they choose, and should be free from discrimination or persecution. Look at it this way - I pretty much detest your religion*, but I would defend to the death your right to practice it in your private life. It's nobody's business but yours. I don't want religion brutally stamped out. It should be allowed to wither on the vine naturally.
All of this business is you just being hysterical. Play the victim and you will be blamed. You know the rules 'round these parts!
*Not strictly true, actually. There are philosophical aspects of Christianity that I admire greatly. It's all the 'Sky-Dad' stuff I have a problem with.
1) Atheists talking about how literal interpretations are stupid and the reason why some atheists are angry at Christians.
2) Atheists then taking a literal interpretation to say that they have a moral obligation to kill people.
3) the usual "Christiand are bad because they don't follow Jewish laws".
4. A Christian pointing out the preposterous morals of the Bible yet ignoring the preposterous morals of the Bible and then being accused of being an Atheist by a fellow Christian who didn't see the sarcasm.
1) Atheists talking about how literal interpretations are stupid and the reason why some atheists are angry at Christians.
2) Atheists then taking a literal interpretation to say that they have a moral obligation to kill people.
3) the usual "Christiand are bad because they don't follow Jewish laws".
4. A Christian pointing out the preposterous morals of the Bible yet ignoring the preposterous morals of the Bible and then being accused of being an Atheist by a fellow Christian who didn't see the sarcasm.
1) Atheists talking about how literal interpretations are stupid and the reason why some atheists are angry at Christians.
2) Atheists then taking a literal interpretation to say that they have a moral obligation to kill people.
3) the usual "Christiand are bad because they don't follow Jewish laws".
4. A Christian pointing out the preposterous morals of the Bible yet ignoring the preposterous morals of the Bible and then being accused of being an Atheist by a fellow Christian who didn't see the sarcasm.
1) Atheists talking about how literal interpretations are stupid and the reason why some atheists are angry at Christians.
2) Atheists then taking a literal interpretation to say that they have a moral obligation to kill people.
3) the usual "Christiand are bad because they don't follow Jewish laws".
4. A Christian pointing out the preposterous morals of the Bible yet ignoring the preposterous morals of the Bible and then being accused of being an Atheist by a fellow Christian who didn't see the sarcasm.
Orlanth wrote: This might explain why it took a considerable time for most major religions to turn from an initial benign stage to one where the religious movement was subverted for political ends. With the atheist state the people behind the religious preferences descended into savagery almost immediately. In fact I can't think of any atheist state which can can be described as benign, whether from the time of the French Communards or Maoist China.
I think your argument there hinges on a really, really strange idea of a benign state, and the nature of early religions and society.
The reason societies like Maoist China look so barbaric is because they are contrasted to modern liberal democracies of the time. While comparing such states to early religious bodies doesn't make any sense, of course, that doesn't mean we should just pretend that they used to be benign, pleasant organisations.
I also think you might have your history more than a bit confused when mentioning the Communards. Their revolution was relatively bloodless (more of a confused, accidental coup really), and it was only when they were defeated by the army and many executed that you see real brutality. The only religious oppression that occurred was when the government inquest into why the communards come to power concluded that it was a lack of belief in God. Perhaps you are thinking of the Jacobins?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fafnir wrote: Yes, I find this to be quite notable. As someone who's an atheist that was raised without any religious background stressed upon me by my parents (my grandparents were quite religious, and my grandfather was and still is an incredibly bigoted religious old coot, but their impact on my beliefs is negligible), and I find myself to be much more tolerant and respectful of the beliefs of others than other atheists I knew who grew up with religion in their lives.
Yeah, they are, ironically enough, very similar to born again Christians in that regard. Folk who've been atheist all their life folk who've been Christian all their life tend to just let it be. But converts, either to atheism or religion, well there's nothing like a new believer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The CF wrote: I understand that. As an example, take me. I never had anything religious in my life. atheist/agnostic parents, atheist/agnostic country. I'm not even baptized and have never had any virtues instilled on me by religion, and yet I've always been caring and nice towards everyone. And that's not because I'm an atheist, hat's because I have values regarding human kindness, influenced by humanism and utilitarianism. But those commandment have nothing do to with atheism, it's just about being nice. Atheism is not about being nice, it's simply about not believing in god. And if someone really needs to have ethical virtues to follow because they can't be nice if they're atheists, let them be humanist atheists.
Thing is, though, lots of people aren't happy just figuring that they're caring and nice to other people so that's okay. Maybe they don't find it that easy to be caring and nice, or maybe they think that might not be enough. Discussing ethics and virtues is a good thing for them, and providing such conversation for people who aren't in a religion is a good thing.
The whole concept of having virtues in atheism is all too alien and illogical for me. Makes no sense and the guy who thought it was a good idea should be ashamed. A good idea would have been to promote humanism in atheist communities, not make atheism and humanism the same thing.
Yeah, I do think this is getting atheism to cross into humanist territory. Agreed there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: Sebster, true Christianity is not a numbers game. It's not about compromising the word of God to gain more converts.
And if people lose the word of God because of an insistance in ludicrous nonsense like a literal Noah's Ark, that ought to be a problem.
But if you don't think so, then carry on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Buzzsaw wrote: It's a fascinating thing to see, especially these days, how few people seem to understand the notion of unchanging, eternal truth, and how many are quick to counsel that these ancient faiths can really get with things by aping the vicissitudes of modern culture. The idea that people embrace ideals that are not subject to popular consent seems alien to many, that the popularity of a thing is irrelevant to its value.
It's far more fascinating to see how people can come to see things as unchanging, eternal truths, when we know through religious studies how temporal and changing many of these beliefs are.
The idea that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is wrong, was simply not a factor within the evangelical community in the US at the time of Roe v Wade. There was some debate on it but it was fairly minor and mostly within the more academic circles of leadership, the real political drive within the party at that time was towards protecting the rights of their schools to teach as they please and to whom they please (remain segregated/enforce segregation within their schools).
It was only at the end of that decade, just a little more than 30 years ago, that the leadership began to make abortion an issue, recognising it as a means of allying with Catholic groups and expanding their influence.
And now, despite that change being within the living memory of most people, it is an unchanging, eternal truth.
So it is also with religions. Heck, ask an Atheist: in the days of superstition and magical thinking, when Atheists were rare as hens' teeth, would people have counseled Atheists that they ought to amend their beliefs to include some accommodation for ghosts, or witchcraft, or hedge sorcery, you know, to get some butts in the seats?
Suggesting 'hey, given you guys should be all accepting Jesus and having people live good Christian lives, so perhaps we shouldn't insist that is as important as believing in a 6,000 year old Earth where Noah really did put every animal on a boat when the whole world was flooded' is not the same thing as suggesting atheists make some allowance for witchcraft. Especially when a very large number of Christians, both today and through history, don't think the that the old testament stories were not literal tellings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Buzzsaw wrote: This is such a perfect reply. In two sentences* the entire argument is carved to the bone and laid hollow: those who complain about "how out of touch with the world" the principled are, have first disregarded the importance of those principles being discussed. As a simple rational proposition, such complaints would seem rather properly to be ignored.
Believing in the literal truth of Noah's Ark or the Garden of Eden isn't a principle, it's the product of an inability to read a book.
Recognising that presenting one's faith so that nonsense illiteracy is given as much screen time and importance as accepting Jesus isn't changing one's principles, it's recognising what your principles should be.
One of the things mentioned in the article is that the UK is the most non-religious state in western Europe. I don't know if the UK is more or less stable and benign than the USA, Greece, Iceland, etc.
The UK is most definately not an atheist state though. If it was we won't still have such oddities as bishops in the house of lords or literal sermons on daily BBC current affairs programmes.
There will never be a stable, benign but fully atheist state, religion is too ingrained into the human psyche for many people to allow such a thing to exist.
One of the things mentioned in the article is that the UK is the most non-religious state in western Europe. I don't know if the UK is more or less stable and benign than the USA, Greece, Iceland, etc.
The UK is most definately not an atheist state though. If it was we won't still have such oddities as bishops in the house of lords or literal sermons on daily BBC current affairs programmes.
There will never be a stable, benign but fully atheist state, religion is too ingrained into the human psyche for many people to allow such a thing to exist.
Perhaps not during our generation, but it could certainly happen in the future.
Given how in the UK most people who put "CoE" on the census don't practice religion in any way, I think we are heading to an atheist majority within a couple of generations unless something radical changes.
I also don't see how people think an atheist country can't be stable or benighn :S
Palindrome wrote: The UK is most definately not an atheist state though. If it was we won't still have such oddities as bishops in the house of lords or literal sermons on daily BBC current affairs programmes.
There will never be a stable, benign but fully atheist state, religion is too ingrained into the human psyche for many people to allow such a thing to exist.
Well, an atheist state would mean that atheism is somehow supported by the state, and that various religions are on some level restricted or controlled. Which basically makes that state not benign as its looking somehow to limit freedom of religion.
On the other hand, a state in which there is no official religion, and in which no religion or creed is held as more important to forming the laws of the state as any other, well that'd be a secular state and we've got loads of those right now.
Well, an atheist state would mean that atheism is somehow supported by the state, and that various religions are on some level restricted or controlled. Which basically makes that state not benign as its looking somehow to limit freedom of religion.
On the other hand, a state in which there is no official religion, and in which no religion or creed is held as more important to forming the laws of the state as any other, well that'd be a secular state and we've got loads of those right now.
Exactly
Although I would argue that secular states, certainly the UK, are not secular enough.
Well, an atheist state would mean that atheism is somehow supported by the state, and that various religions are on some level restricted or controlled. Which basically makes that state not benign as its looking somehow to limit freedom of religion.
On the other hand, a state in which there is no official religion, and in which no religion or creed is held as more important to forming the laws of the state as any other, well that'd be a secular state and we've got loads of those right now.
Exactly
Although I would argue that secular states, certainly the UK, are not secular enough.
Could you explain what you mean by not secular enough?
Could you explain what you mean by not secular enough?
The best example is that the House of Lords has 26 Bishops, who are there purely because they are Bishops. They may not have a great deal of political power, in the scheme of things they have very little, but they do have some tangible imput into the rulership of this country.
There are also other things like state funded religious schools, prayers said at all council meetings and overtly religious content in non religious BBC broadcasting.
The UK is far from a theocracy but we will not be a truly a secular nation until there is a complete seperation between church and state. It will happen eventually I am sure, although some religious trappings may well linger simply due to tradition.
When I was in school assemblies were compulsory and always had religious content. That was in my Primary and Secondary schools, both of which had no official religious affiliation. That was a while ago though (mid 80s- late 90s) so things may have changed since.
Could you explain what you mean by not secular enough?
The best example is that the House of Lords has 26 Bishops, who are there purely because they are Bishops. They may not have a great deal of political power, in the scheme of things they have very little, but they do have some tangible imput into the rulership of this country.
I will admit that I don't know alot about your government. But how is a Bishop being there purely because they are a Bishop different than Lords Temporal being there simply because he is a Lord? Would you feel differently if there were no Lords Spiritual, but instead have Bishops (or any other members of a religion) be appointed?
There are also other things like state funded religious schools, prayers said at all council meetings and overtly religious content in non religious BBC broadcasting.
I will admit that I don't know alot about your government. But how is a Bishop being there purely because they are a Bishop different than Lords Temporal being there simply because he is a Lord? Would you feel differently if there were no Lords Spiritual, but instead have Bishops (or any other members of a religion) be appointed?
The whole thing badly needs reformed but the Bishops presence is more of an issue for me as they are there purely for theological reasons.
To the best of my knowledge whilst schools are supposed to have an assembly each day i don't think there's a requirement for it to have religious teachings as such..
That said my bog standard secondary school ( 11-16 year olds for those overseas) we were supposed to sing hymns at one or two of them, course by the time we were 13 or older you'd just stand there bored or maybe sing "hilarious" alternative lyrics.
I will admit that I don't know alot about your government. But how is a Bishop being there purely because they are a Bishop different than Lords Temporal being there simply because he is a Lord? Would you feel differently if there were no Lords Spiritual, but instead have Bishops (or any other members of a religion) be appointed?
The whole thing badly needs reformed but the Bishops presence is more of an issue for me as they are there purely for theological reasons.
I see, thanks for sheding some light on that.
For a lot of things like that I can understand people not wanting to have somebody appointed only because they are a bishop. My only concern would be if it goes so far in the other direction that you might end up with something like "no Bishops" can be appointed. I think that ideally you would end up with something like "it is perfeclty fine to appoint religious clergy, as long as being clergy was not the reason they were appointed".
d-usa wrote: What about participation in them. Is it some sort of "everybody come here" kind of deal, or are there pretty easy options for not participating?
Generally you can opt out if your parents write to the school and opt you out or you are over 18. Generally you stand outside until the religious bits are over then come in for the announcements. I'm not sure if things have changed since i was at school.
d-usa wrote: What about participation in them. Is it some sort of "everybody come here" kind of deal, or are there pretty easy options for not participating?
Generally you can opt out if your parents write to the school and opt you out or you are over 18. Generally you stand outside until the religious bits are over then come in for the announcements. I'm not sure if things have changed since i was at school.
I see.
That's kind of crappy. I kind of think that kids should be able to decide if they want to participate in the religious bits or not independent of parents writing to school. But I also think it's kind of crappy that you are standing outside somewhere like you got a contagious disease while everbody gets their religion on. Seems like the ideal scenario would be to have two separate deals. Start out with the announcements, then have a separate time for "meditation" or whatever and let the religious folks be religious and the non-religious can play games or do whatever.
d-usa wrote: I kind of think that kids should be able to decide if they want to participate in the religious bits or not independent of parents writing to school.
While I understand the sentiment, I'm not sure 8 year-olds typically aren't quite savvy enough to truly understand the implications of that kind of decision. Certainly there is a point in time where a young human has to sart making those kinds off decisions, but I would have to think that would be in the teens at the very least.
The other problem with the system of sending a kid outside is that, sure the kid isn't participating, but now he/she is singling themselves out as different, which in primary school is often not a good thing. The idea should be to minimize ostracism, not create situations that emphasize it. The idea you mention about everyone getting quiet time for whatever it is they want to do is a better option then saying to everyone "NOW THIS CHILD WILL BE CLEAVED FROM US FOR NOT BELIEVING, AND RETURN IN 10 MINUTES".
What's the age of consent in the UK? Seems like you should be old enough to legally exclude yourself from religion if you are legally old enough to feth...
And if people lose the word of God because of an insistance in ludicrous nonsense like a literal Noah's Ark, that ought to be a problem.
But if you don't think so, then carry on.
Sebster there are many Christians that don't accept the Genesis accounts as literal truth, but they believe it to be a Moral allegory. I mean this isn't news to us on this forum, that doesn't change the fact that I believe they are in error, but being in error doesn't necessarily make someone a heretic or an unbeliever. I think you underestimate the power of the Gospel.
One example is my own conversion..As I have mentioned, before my conversion(this was way before Dawkins ad Hitchens made it big), I was a hardcore Athiest, Believing that the Bible was a good moral book but was full of mythological nonsense. But when I started to actually search, I came to find out that I had it all wrong, and I had a conversion experience with the Lord. Even after my initial conversion I wasn't sure if the stories were myth or literal. As I researched, and studied it became apparent to me that the creation account in genesis, is meant to be taken Literally.
Having said that, I do acknowledge that there are passages in the Bible that are metaphor, for example Jesus said that He is the "door" but we know he didn't mean he was a literal wooden door. Also it's debated whether or not the talking serpent was indeed a reptile snake or if "serpent" was in reference to some other demonic entity. It's an interesting debate but fundamentally it doesn't matter. To be honest if I was wrong about my young earth creation stance, it wouldn't effect my relationship with Jesus at all.
At my school we have assembly's twice a week, and since my school was originally christian, we have a short (1-2 lines) prayer at the end, which consists of us lowering our heads slightly as the teacher says some words. So i your atheist or any other religion, you just tune out the prayer and no-one cares.
generalgrog wrote: As I researched, and studied it became apparent to me that the creation account in genesis, is meant to be taken Literally.
Meant by whom?
The Author of course..believed to be Moses.
We know there are different types of literature in the Bible, poetry, law, allegory, prophetic writings, and historical writings, letters. When you look at the account from just a literary style in the hebrew it is not the same style as the poetry found else where in the Bible, it is written as a historical narrative.
If you compare the Hebrew style in Genesis 1 to Hebrew style in Genesis 37-50(Story of Joseph),Joshua 1-10(Hebrews enter promised land) and other historical narratives the style is the same. As opposed to poetry such as.Genesis 49--(Jacobs blessing), Exodus 15(Song of Moses), Numbers 23-24(Oracles of Balaam)...and others
generalgrog wrote: As I researched, and studied it became apparent to me that the creation account in genesis, is meant to be taken Literally.
Meant by whom?
The Author of course..believed to be Moses.
Not believed to be Moses by anyone who has seriously studied the issue (by that I mean, who is not studying the text as a secondary matter where the primary concern is ideological -- for example, trying to "prove" the earth is mere thousands of years old). Moreover, what evidence is there that the author(s) of Genesis conceived of history in the sense by which we mean "literal"?
I wonder, and I don't mean this in even a slightly derogatory way, if you have ever considered conversion to Islam. I think your approach to sacred text would be more at home among Muslims.
LordofHats wrote: This being the first sign that something derogatory is about to be said, maybe you should just skip it and move on to what you actually want to say
I meant exactly what I said, thank you very much, which is that no derision is intended. The idea that eternal truth is communicated directly from God to man, in the literal sense, is much more important to the Muslim (and Mormon) rather than Christian tradition. Although I don't in any degree sympathize with that aspect of the Muslim tradition (or Mormon one, for that matter), I want to be clear that I am not substituting an attack on GG's claims with arguments against Islam.
One of the things mentioned in the article is that the UK is the most non-religious state in western Europe. I don't know if the UK is more or less stable and benign than the USA, Greece, Iceland, etc.
The UK is most definately not an atheist state though. If it was we won't still have such oddities as bishops in the house of lords or literal sermons on daily BBC current affairs programmes.
There will never be a stable, benign but fully atheist state, religion is too ingrained into the human psyche for many people to allow such a thing to exist.
The USA is an atheist state, and is pretty stable and benign. France, and Japan, also.
One of the things mentioned in the article is that the UK is the most non-religious state in western Europe. I don't know if the UK is more or less stable and benign than the USA, Greece, Iceland, etc.
The UK is most definately not an atheist state though. If it was we won't still have such oddities as bishops in the house of lords or literal sermons on daily BBC current affairs programmes.
There will never be a stable, benign but fully atheist state, religion is too ingrained into the human psyche for many people to allow such a thing to exist.
The USA is an atheist state, and is pretty stable and benign. France, and Japan, also.
I would call it a secular state, rather than an atheist state. Calling it an atheist state would seem to imply a stance one way or the other, which in theory the government of a nation with religious freedom shouldn't be doing. I also realize that the reality might be different than what is on paper.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reality is the state is atheist in theory but has many references to Christianity in practicality.
There are in reality many references to God and Christianity. Having a separation of church and state, that is, having a secular state, isn't the same as having an atheist state. Calling it an atheist state implies a stance on religion and spirituality, which theoretically the state should not have, as it is for individuals to choose their own religion or lack thereof.
generalgrog wrote: As I researched, and studied it became apparent to me that the creation account in genesis, is meant to be taken Literally.
Meant by whom?
The Author of course..believed to be Moses.
Not believed to be Moses by anyone who has seriously studied the issue (by that I mean, who is not studying the text as a secondary matter where the primary concern is ideological -- for example, trying to "prove" the earth is mere thousands of years old). Moreover, what evidence is there that the author(s) of Genesis conceived of history in the sense by which we mean "literal"?
I wonder, and I don't mean this in even a slightly derogatory way, if you have ever considered conversion to Islam. I think your approach to sacred text would be more at home among Muslims.
Wow talk about a "no true scotsman" argument...we've got a prime example of one right here.....how ironic...
GG
PS..I'm well aware of the documentary hypothesis Manchu..
generalgrog wrote: As I researched, and studied it became apparent to me that the creation account in genesis, is meant to be taken Literally.
Meant by whom?
The Author of course..believed to be Moses.
Not believed to be Moses by anyone who has seriously studied the issue (by that I mean, who is not studying the text as a secondary matter where the primary concern is ideological -- for example, trying to "prove" the earth is mere thousands of years old).
Wow talk about a "no true scotsman" argument...we've got a prime example of one right here...
I don't think so. I am distinguishing between people who study the Bible for the sake of studying the Bible and people who study the Bible according to a priori commitments to premises incompatible with scientific theories.
I don't think so... you want to believe that the creation myth set out by the bible is the literal truth, knock yourself out. I don't think anyone else will be joining you for that particular party.
I don't think so... you want to believe that the creation myth set out by the bible is the literal truth, knock yourself out. I don't think anyone else will be joining you for that particular party.
A few would, but less and less of them every year; next they will start believing that the earth is round!
Manchu wrote: Not believed to be Moses by anyone who has seriously studied the issue (by that I mean, who is not studying the text as a secondary matter where the primary concern is ideological -- for example, trying to "prove" the earth is mere thousands of years old).Wow talk about a "no true scotsman" argument...we've got a prime example of one right here...I don't think so. I am distinguishing between people who study the Bible for the sake of studying the Bible and people who study the Bible according to a priori commitments to premises incompatible with scientific theories.
The fallacious nature of your argument is thus....You are arguing that Only people that have no "a priori" commitments are "serious" students of the Bible.
When the truth is that everyone brings "a priori" commitments when studying the Bible(and science by the way). So if we followed your argument to it's logical conclusion no one could be a serious student. And we no that, that cannot be true.
generalgrog wrote: Sebster there are many Christians that don't accept the Genesis accounts as literal truth, but they believe it to be a Moral allegory. I mean this isn't news to us on this forum, that doesn't change the fact that I believe they are in error, but being in error doesn't necessarily make someone a heretic or an unbeliever. I think you underestimate the power of the Gospel.
Of course there are many people who don't believe in Genesis as a literal truth, in fact I'd say they are a significant majority of Christians.
And yeah, your belief in the power of gospel would be much greater than mine. Pretty much that has to be true by definition, or else you'd be a pretty crappy Christian and I'd be a pretty crappy atheist
Having said that, I do acknowledge that there are passages in the Bible that are metaphor, for example Jesus said that He is the "door" but we know he didn't mean he was a literal wooden door. Also it's debated whether or not the talking serpent was indeed a reptile snake or if "serpent" was in reference to some other demonic entity. It's an interesting debate but fundamentally it doesn't matter. To be honest if I was wrong about my young earth creation stance, it wouldn't effect my relationship with Jesus at all.
The problem, I believe, is that in many cases these aren't presented as things that won't affect your relationship with Jesus. The faith is presented as a whole kit & kaboodle deal, where you accept the events of Genesis as literal events that really happened, you accept young earth creationism and everything else. It is the problem with 'literalism' basically, the idea that there is one, simply plain and direct truth to a story, and that you take the whole thing as a truth as presented, or you reject it.
It leads to, like with one poster in this thread, switching from faith to mockery of the sillier elements that are assumed by many Christians to be core elements of the faith.
Isn't that like assuming Father Brown wrote the Father Brown stories?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes. Secular would be a better word than atheist.
I already said that exact thing; "Well, an atheist state would mean that atheism is somehow supported by the state, and that various religions are on some level restricted or controlled. Which basically makes that state not benign as its looking somehow to limit freedom of religion.
On the other hand, a state in which there is no official religion, and in which no religion or creed is held as more important to forming the laws of the state as any other, well that'd be a secular state and we've got loads of those right now."
If they're not overlooked, why are they not practiced more often?
Who's to say they aren't practiced more often? To be fair, it only takes one powerful guy making a dick move to negate thousands of less powerful guys being nice.
...that doesn't change the fact that I believe they are in error, but being in error doesn't necessarily make someone a heretic or an unbeliever.
No, kinda it does. If you don't believe the orthodoxy, you are a heretic. If you change your faith, you are an apostate. If you actively dismiss the claims of the religion, denying the existence (and in some cases only the legitimacy) of God, you are an atheist. As a hobby, I listen to the local Christian radio channel... This is quite literally the message that was on the radio this afternoon. No kidding.
I think you underestimate the power of the Gospel.
To do what? It's a story that most people - most believers - know incompletely at best. The "power" comes from charismatic demagogues who spin a good tale manipulating the stories to fit their own particular interpretation of scripture. The story by itself, from a plain language reading, is uninspiring...
One example is my own conversion..As I have mentioned, before my conversion(this was way before Dawkins ad Hitchens made it big), I was a hardcore Athiest,
Please go into detail on what changed your mind. It's difficult to go from not believing in Santa Claus to believing in Santa Claus. I'm curious what evidentiary basis formed the foundation of your change of heart...
But when I started to actually search, I came to find out that I had it all wrong, and I had a conversion experience with the Lord.
You searched what? You found out what? What does "a conversion experience with the Lord" actually mean?
As I researched, and studied it became apparent to me that the creation account in genesis, is meant to be taken Literally. ]/quote]
So, what evidence made you think that people were literally made from dirt and ribs? How did the evidence usurp and replace evolutionary biology? From whom was this evidence obtained (I'd presume they'd be interested in the prizes, funding, and notoriety that would be theirs if they were able to refute everything science says about biology, cosmology, geology, etc.)?
It's okay to be "influenced" by religion. Lots of good things can come from religious ideas and teachings (which doesn't mean that you have to be religious to be good or have good ideas). As long as religion is not forced on people or used to opress, then its fine.
Going back to the original topic, the reason for Alain de Botton's 10 Virtues was to show that humanists can have virtues which are not dependent on religious principles. In other words, to offset a possible religious perception that humanists being non-religious have no morality.
Kilkrazy wrote: In other words, to offset a possible religious perception that humanists being non-religious have no morality.
Which is a pretty idiotic stance to take in the first place, morality comes from our place in society and our upbringing and personal experiences, it doesn't come from a book.
If it was then why is it that what is considered moral and immoral has changed in the past 2000 years and yet the bible has not?
I remember when my grandfather gave me a long (loooooooong) and loud (LOUD) lecture on how all atheists are completely devoid of morals and responsibility, and how they all amount to nothing more than worthless drunks.
...would be a real shame for him to find out if his grandson was an atheist.
Fafnir wrote: I remember when my grandfather gave me a long (loooooooong) and loud (LOUD) lecture on how all atheists are completely devoid of morals and responsibility, and how they all amount to nothing more than worthless drunks.
...would be a real shame for him to find out if his grandson was an atheist.
I object to this most strongly! The fact that I am a worthless drunk is purely coincidence!
Kilkrazy wrote: Going back to the original topic, the reason for Alain de Botton's 10 Virtues was to show that humanists can have virtues which are not dependent on religious principles. In other words, to offset a possible religious perception that humanists being non-religious have no morality.
I agree that you've concisely stated what he attempted to do. But looking over the virtues listed, it is immediately apparent that they are only on the list at all because of the Christian lineage of Western culture.
They are virtues that have existed in many cultures and religions. If de Botton expresses them in terms which people find religiously resonant, that is probably because people find resonance in their own religious background.
It does not invalidate the idea that atheists can -- and should -- have virtues.
Whether these virtues exist in non-Christian cultures and religions is immaterial to the issue of whether Western people find them compelling. The reason Western people may find them compelling is that they resonate with the Christian heritage of Western culture. That is to say, the relevance of these virtues is possible in the West because of the influence of Christianity. People who are atheists certainly can and should have virtues; but there is only one real value (I disagree that it's a virtue) that one can explicitly call "atheist," and that is the disavowal of the existence of God and/or gods.
That is where we will have to disagree Manchu - as there is no god, there is only one value that can be explicitly be called religious - the belief in god(s).
Atheist commandments and atheist churches? Thanks guys, this will really shut up all those annoying people who keep insisting that atheism is a religion...
SilverMK2 wrote: That is where we will have to disagree Manchu - as there is no god, there is only one value that can be explicitly be called religious - the belief in god(s).
That is contrary to both history and reason. Historically, the values that Botton lists trace to widespread acceptance of foundational Christian principles such as the equality of human beings before God. Conceptually, the belief in God (specifically the God of Christianity) is what allowed these values to develop. That is to say, using the same example, that human beings are equal because they were so-created by a God who exists.
SilverMK2 wrote: That is where we will have to disagree Manchu - as there is no god, there is only one value that can be explicitly be called religious - the belief in god(s).
That is contrary to both history and reason. Historically, the values that Botton lists trace to widespread acceptance of foundational Christian principles such as the equality of human beings before God. Conceptually, the belief in God (specifically the God of Christianity) is what allowed these values to develop. That is to say, using the same example, that human beings are equal because they were so-created by a God who exists.
You have it backwards. These gods and religions are created by people, so they share their values.
I would agree with Crimson on this. I'd go so far as to say that most values (at least those listed) are universal in that every culture in some way encourages them to varying extents. That's why I responded to them as a "well no dip sherlock how'd you figure this out" sort of way.
Manchu wrote: they were so-created by a God who exists.
See, I think that is kind of the problem; I and other atheists would say that gods don't exist. If you have any proof or even a hint of evidence to the contrary we would love to hear it.
That being the case, religion is a reflection of humanity's desires, needs and wishes, not some divine message of guidance.
One of the great tragedies that has occured is for atheism to hijack the word 'reason', what they should be using to define their outlook is 'dogma', especially those who call themselves an enemy of religion, no matter how peaceful they appear. Sure Hitchens and our Albatross here arent/werent going to persecute them. But when atheism wants societal change and society doesn't change the way they want it someone will move to stage two and apply pressure. To some extent we are already there.
I'm quite unsure has to how you can reconcile that statement with, well... everything. That there has been violence from atheist against theists is a given, but you fail to mention that it's a footnote at the bottom of history. How many countries today will still stop you from entering a public office, or will discriminate against you, because you are not of the correct religion? Then ask yousrself how many will stop you from applying to the same public office, once laicity as replaced the official religion, if you happen to be religious?
Take out the few totalitarian abnormalities, and the answer is precisely none.
Manchu wrote: they were so-created by a God who exists.
See, I think that is kind of the problem; I and other atheists would say that gods don't exist. If you have any proof or even a hint of evidence to the contrary we would love to hear it.
That being the case, religion is a reflection of humanity's desires, needs and wishes, not some divine message of guidance.
I would like to note that you have equally little proof that a god doesn't exist.
Religion is formed by humans, but i would not say that it is their desires or wishes. Some religions are quite depressing.
Manchu wrote: they were so-created by a God who exists.
See, I think that is kind of the problem; I and other atheists would say that gods don't exist. If you have any proof or even a hint of evidence to the contrary we would love to hear it.
That being the case, religion is a reflection of humanity's desires, needs and wishes, not some divine message of guidance.
I would like to note that you have equally little proof that a god doesn't exist.
Religion is formed by humans, but i would not say that it is their desires or wishes. Some religions are quite depressing.
There is no proof that there isn't a giant invisible unicorn floating around on the far side of the sun either. However the burdon of proof lies with those posing the supposing. The null hypothesis is there is no god.
The probability of the existance of god as described by any particular religion and having done the things they say it has existing is vanishingly remote to the point that it is for all intents and purposes zero.
As people climbed the mountains and found no city of the gods, as they sailed to the edge of the world and found no world tree they pushed the boundaries of god further back to the point we are at now where god essentially doesn't exist in our universe so you "can't prove god doesn't exist".
SilverMK2 wrote: That is where we will have to disagree Manchu - as there is no god, there is only one value that can be explicitly be called religious - the belief in god(s).
That is contrary to both history and reason. Historically, the values that Botton lists trace to widespread acceptance of foundational Christian principles such as the equality of human beings before God. Conceptually, the belief in God (specifically the God of Christianity) is what allowed these values to develop. That is to say, using the same example, that human beings are equal because they were so-created by a God who exists.
Except, you know, caste systems and slavery and all that other fun stuff.
It's funny how that bad stuff happens too, either because of or in spite of, religious doctrine. Maybe it's just because of the way we are, regardless.
Manchu wrote: Whether these virtues exist in non-Christian cultures and religions is immaterial to the issue of whether Western people find them compelling. The reason Western people may find them compelling is that they resonate with the Christian heritage of Western culture.
I would disagree with that most strongly, Manchu. Many of the so-called Atheist 'commandments' have very real evolutionary benefits, and there is mounting evidence that things like empathy and altruistic behaviour exist due human evolution taking place within communal groups. Put simply, some of these behaviours could be inherent, meaning that they informed religion, not the other way around. That would certainly make sense given the structural similarities between many religions - perhaps the ones that flourished were the ones that most closely mirrored our natural behaviour.
There is no proof that there isn't a giant invisible unicorn floating around on the far side of the sun either. However the burdon of proof lies with those posing the supposing. The null hypothesis is there is no god.
The probability of the existance of god as described by any particular religion and having done the things they say it has existing is vanishingly remote to the point that it is for all intents and purposes zero.
As people climbed the mountains and found no city of the gods, as they sailed to the edge of the world and found no world tree they pushed the boundaries of god further back to the point we are at now where god essentially doesn't exist in our universe so you "can't prove god doesn't exist".
If this were a science experiment, that would be the case. There are some problems with it, such as being fundamentally untestable.
This is quite true. I would wish that all of the strange myths were to be disproven, but I doubt it will happen, since we can't travel back in time. One of this universe's better laws, I think.
Close enough to right, almost sort of poetic. But I think the pure and simple truth is that we do not have enough information...and we never will, till we die. To claim knowledge of either point of view would be arrogant, in my opinion.
I would say it is immaterial because such behaviors are not the result of a value system in the human sense.
I guess my point was that if animals can develop these behaviours without a value system, why can't we? The most "intelligent" animals usually show these behaviours.
FWIW I wouldn't say Humans evolving a sense of empathic emotions outrules the possibility of a God, whatever you could define that as; Man on a cloud, or something more subtle.
FWIW I wouldn't say Humans evolving a sense of empathic emotions outrules the possibility of a God, whatever you could define that as; Man on a cloud, or something more subtle.
Medium of Death wrote: I guess my point was that if animals can develop these behaviours without a value system, why can't we? The most "intelligent" animals usually show these behaviours.
The most intelligent animals, which would be us, actually don't reliably show empathetic behavior beyond kin groups and even within kin groups. Other animals don't actually live according to the Golden Rule. They do not love their neighbors as themselves. They have no concept of tolerance, patience, politeness, etc. I feel a bit silly having to point this out.
Crimson wrote: Wouldn't such instinctive behaviour be more logical starting point for human moral systems than belief in supernatural?
Not at all, considering that these instictive behaviors do not seem to lead to values like equality. Quite the reverse!
Albatross wrote: To which I would would reply that you are somewhat disingenuously putting the horse before the cart, friend.
Actually, this is not so. Culture is not a product of biological evolution in anything like an immediate sense. Indeed, to call the relationship "indirect" implies too much intimacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Perhaps I should clarify that I am not in any way arguing that the fact that people believe in God is evidence that God exists?
Manchu wrote: The most intelligent animals, which would be us, actually don't reliably show empathetic behavior beyond kin groups and even within kin groups. Other animals don't actually live according to the Golden Rule. They do not love their neighbors as themselves. They have no concept of tolerance, patience, politeness, etc.
That would be incorrect, advanced mammals are known to refuse a reward if they believe they are offered more than what an equally deserving kin has received. They are, for all intent and purposes, requiring equal pay for equal work. There's many examples of patience, humour, and I'm sure we could find tolerance and politeness along the way too.
Your belief in the superiority of humans is grounded in the ideist view that concepts are immanent objects of a specific nature, while everything points toward them being only theoritical objects, and that what we call 'ideas' and 'concept' are only verbalized forms of sensual correlates (and then the implications of thise sensual correlates).
I can assure you that none of my positions are grounded on the notion that concepts are immanent. Although you, who believe non-human "advanced mammals" believe in equal pay for equal work, certainly seem to accept that notion.
Culture is not a product of biological evolution in anything like an immediate sense. Indeed, to call the relationship "indirect" implies too much intimacy.
Culture is not a 'happy accident' from an evolutionary standpoint. Other apes engage in what we can recognise as cultural practice. If culture emerges (to some degree) from the ability to think abstractly, how can that not be said to be a product of biological evolution? It's like you're arguing that cultural behaviour is a largely inconsequential by-product with no evolutionary purpose, which I know you can't be. Because that would be silly.
Manchu wrote: I can assure you that none of my positions are grounded on the notion that concepts are immanent. Although you, who believe non-human "advanced mammals" believe in equal pay for equal work, certainly seem to accept that notion.
Certainly not, like I said, I believe that concepts (and to an extent, values, which is ambiguous here) are correlates of experience, principally sensual experience. Empathy, tolerance, love, all hold deep advantages for the species which can express them. Humans simply verbalise and complexify them (with great results, of course).
During most of their existence, humans have lived and acted empathically toward one another, and yet the term, the concept, the litterature on them are only, what, a few thousands years old?
Since it is a matter of definitions, there's nothing for it. If the word "culture" can be used in a non-analogical way to apply to non-human animals then I don't think the word culture has much use as applicable to human beings. But, since you and I are posting on the internet rather than picking the fleas out of each other's fur (shudder), it shouldn't require any more explanation than that. Then again, this kind of solipsism is pretty steeply characteristic of the internet so I suppose you should just pretend this post amounts to "let's agree to disagree" or maybe an inoffensive emoticon.
Manchu wrote: Calling the social behavior of non-human animals "culture" is honestly OTT fadiness.
Why? Just because they are less complex than ours? Then children, kids and teens have no ''culture'' either (they do, despite the efforts some of them seem to put into making us believe the contrary).
I would argue that infant humans are cultureless (at least in the sense of being subjects) and become inculturated to successively more intense degrees with age.
Manchu wrote: Since it is a matter of definitions, there's nothing for it. If the word "culture" can be used in a non-analogical way to apply to non-human animals then I don't think the word culture has much use as applicable to human beings. But, since you and I are posting on the internet rather than picking the fleas out of each other's fur (shudder), it shouldn't require any more explanation than that.
But see, you're making the mistake of assuming what is meant when applying the term culture to some non-human animal behaviour. What you're alluding to is the fact that there is a difference between instinctive social behaviour in animals and the arbitrary symbolism humans use in order to code and de-code their environment and actions. The point is, apes have been observed doing exactly that. We are not the only species that uses arbitrary coding, or so the science suggests.
Manchu wrote: I would argue that infant humans are cultureless (at least in the sense of being subjects) and become inculturated to successively more intense degrees with age.
Agreed for infant, but I think this changes quite early. Simply, if culture has any meaning, it's in opposition to nature ; if something isn't given as part of your nature, if you must learn it, then it's cultural. Since we know that animals, from birds til primates, have things to learn, then we know that some of them have culture too. They could learn different things, and have a different culture.
Manchu wrote: I would argue that infant humans are cultureless (at least in the sense of being subjects) and become inculturated to successively more intense degrees with age.
Agreed for infant, but I think this changes quite early. Simply, if culture has any meaning, it's in opposition to nature ; if something isn't given as part of your nature, if you must learn it, then it's cultural. Since we know that animals, from birds til primates, have things to learn, then we know that some of them have culture too. They could learn different things, and have a different culture.
I would go further than by saying that arbitrariness plays a large part in determining what culture is, in terms of the creation of meaning - a central component of culture. It is believed that language as a form of communication is inherent in humans to a certain extent; the differences in the phonemes selected are arbitrary, and therefore, cultural differences.
Albatross wrote: I would go further than by saying that arbitrariness plays a large part in determining what culture is, in terms of the creation of meaning - a central component of culture. It is believed that language as a form of communication is inherent in humans to a certain extent; the differences in the phonemes selected are arbitrary, and therefore, cultural differences.
That's another thing about animal consciousness which has always annoyed me ; every classical thinkers have refused them any degree of arbitrariness.
That's a great point, though. A Nature vs Nurture debate doesn't take in account arbitrary decisions, and should.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Postmodern is not the same thing a deconstructivist.
Enough often associated that I feel confident anyone should understand. But since we are getting our feet stuck in the carpet's flowers, as we say in french, here :
''One of the most well-known postmodernist methodologies is "deconstruction," -Wiki
But your point is still obscure ; how is '' if something isn't given as part of your nature, if you must learn it, then it's cultural'' deconstructivist in any way? And how is something being analogical somehow a problem? Both children and pups learn. Yes, the actions they take while doing so, and what they learn are differents. How does that invalidate the extension of learning to other animals? Many people have learned different things then me, and did it using different methods. The theoritical result remains the same : we have both acquired behaviours that we didn't have naturally.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Enough often associated that I feel confident anyone should understand.
I never tire of your insensible assumption that I have no education ...
In any event, it is deconstructivist in the general meaning of that term. There is a complex phenomenon signified by the term "culture." In order to explain the phenomenon, you are attempting to dismantle the complexity by locating "essential" characteristics. In other words, you have reduced the phenomenon to a formula and found that you can apply the formula to non-humans. This process is what Quine noted is the strange irony of empiricism, that it insists on abstracting away from reality. I call that movement deconstructive because I see it as a reductionist shift in narrative emphasis.
d-usa wrote: Is Atheism something cultural that you learn from others? Or would a person growing up completely isolated from anything be atheist?
Well, such a person would probably end up being an autist, at which point the question becomes impossible to answer.
If they were isolated from any belief system which touches on matter of religion, then I could see it going one way or the other, depending how much imagination the person has.
I would say it is immaterial because such behaviors are not the result of a value system in the human sense.
I guess my point was that if animals can develop these behaviours without a value system, why can't we? The most "intelligent" animals usually show these behaviours.
FWIW I wouldn't say Humans evolving a sense of empathic emotions outrules the possibility of a God, whatever you could define that as; Man on a cloud, or something more subtle.
I think that in many ways, we actually do... If you watch enough Nat Geo, Discovery, etc. you'll see that a good portion of the animal kingdom only feels empathy towards it's own kind and more narrowly, it's own family unit (whatever it may be) On the whole, I think that most of us human animals are like this. We care a great deal for those we develop feelings for, or always love, and not so much for people outside of that circle. For instance, if my good buddy "joe" is having a tough time, I'll probably feel somewhat bad, and have a desire to help him if I can; the polar opposite is true of the guy that I see squatting under a bridge.
d-usa wrote: What evolutionary benefit does empathy create?
in certain animals, it ensures that the species lives on.. I mean, outside of gators and sharks and the like, most newborn animals are fething useless, and will die without an empathic parent to care for them.
Manchu wrote: I never tire of your insensible assumption that I have no education ...
How you've manage to be insulted by what I said, I do not know...
In any event, it is deconstructivist in the general meaning of that term. There is a complex phenomenon signified by the term "culture." In order to explain the phenomenon, you are attempting to dismantle the complexity by locating "essential" characteristics. In other words, you have reduced the phenomenon to a formula and found that you can apply the formula to non-humans. This process is what Quine noted is the strange irony of empiricism, that it insists on abstracting away from reality. I call that movement deconstructive because I see it as a reductionist shift in narrative emphasis.
That's about the most imprecise use of the term 'deconstruction' I have ever seen. Not surprising that you could perceive it correct to apply it to what I've said, the process you've described is large enough to refer to about any intellectual process, from definition to analysis.
Deconstruction refers to the analysis of the frame of reference underlying a proposition or a text, without references to information gleaned on the life or thoughts of the author. I see it as is the opposite of Montesquieu's method, that is to always ascribe the best possible meaning to a text.
d-usa wrote: What evolutionary benefit does empathy create?
I could imagine many. The simplest would be in the distribution of food ; if you feel someone else's hunger as your own, then you are prompted to end that hunger.
d-usa wrote: What is the benefit/purpose of evolution?
Scientific rigour requires to say none, evolution has no 'aim', it just is a consequence of how the universe is.
In philosophy, it's still very much debated. My thesis supervisor is currently in Austria at a phenomenologist summit on the topic of intentionnality and consciousness,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: It's amusing that we are only talking about the positive aspects of animal social behavior.
Refering to habits like pogroms in advanced mammals?
Well, I usually assume that most folks think of evolution as passing along genes that give you (or the race) an advantage over others. If it makes you better, you have a better chance to beat competitors than your peers, your genetic advantage gets passed on.
Indeed. Dolphins are known to bully/kill other marine mammals just for the sheer fun of it. Whales often toy with their food.
The benefits of evolution? Becoming more adapted to ones environment, for a start. Worms have evolved to resist high levels of arsenic in soil over a relatively short period of human generations, although this represents many hundred, if not thousand worm generations.
The benefits of evolution? Becoming more adapted to ones environment, for a start. Worms have evolved to resist high levels of arsenic in soil over a relatively short period of human generations, although this represents many hundred, if not thousand worm generations.
But how does empathy make a species more adapted to the environment?
Monster Rain wrote: Interesting for you to bring up pogroms. Watch documentaries on chimps and their treatment of other primates in their vicinity.
Even with other families/clan/whathaveyou they can be dicks. Yes, culture also has it's bad results, that's undeniable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: But how does empathy make a species more adapted to the environment?
It doesn't (or only indirectly). Empathy allows you to form stronger bonds with others, which in turn holds many advantages.
If I care about your suffering, and see a threat closing in on you, I might warn you (if I'm bright enough). If I don't have a slightest urge to save you from suffering, why should I bother?
But if evolution makes you more adapt to surviving in your environment, empathy wouldn't help our species. Why give away resources that I gathered because I have a genetic advantage of some kind and give them to somebody that is too weak? Wouldn't that diminish my genetic advantage and hurt the species?
If I jump in a river to help somebody that is drowning and I kill myself in the process, then empathy just beat evolution.
Seems like helping the weak doesn't help the survival of the fittest.
Things are easier if you work together. Empathy forms part of that. You can't take down that Woolly Mammoth and enjoy its spoils by yourself. Get a group of equally hungry people together and now were talking.
d-usa wrote: But if evolution makes you more adapt to surviving in your environment
It isn't that simple, and it doesn't always work like that.
d-usa wrote: Why give away resources that I gathered
Becuase you alone die in 30 odd years with nothing from anyone else of any kind.*
You are viewing this far to narrowly when we are talking about large groups, not individuals. A single man cannot explore the world or build a galleon, nor travel to the moon. Nor can a single man create disease fighting drugs or create systems of mathematics and logic. A single man can not reproduce nor can he build a functioning town or city. If you let everyone else around starve and die, guess who is next? Sure it might be from a fall or some disease, but with no one to aid you in any way you are fethed. Even when we work against each other we still, in a way are working together.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: And feeding the sick grandparents who can't help hunt or cook the mammoth anymore helps how?
Institutional memory. There aren't many societies that just pulled a Logan's Run, and often in fact venerated the elders.
*Assuming your mother is far less selfish and actually raises to some extent. Without her empathy you wouldn't make it more than a handful of hours.
d-usa wrote: And feeding the sick grandparents who can't help hunt or cook the mammoth anymore helps how?
As long as they're around they can share the knowledge they have and give advice to others.
And yes, sometimes empathy causes us to to help someone we 'optimally' shouldn't. But empathy has not evolved to be that precise, and hopefully it never will.
Will Wikipedia replace institutionalized memory? Grandmother better be careful!
I think family empathy would be different from societal empathy. We want our genes to get passed along, so letting our kids and family die wouldn't make any sense.
It's also the reason we don't like our in-laws; they don't have our genes so they are our enemy.
True story!
But can evolution and empathy result in the same argument of "makers vs takers"? Is empathy always beneficial or could it become a liability at some point?
d-usa wrote: But can evolution and empathy result in the same argument of "makers vs takers"? Is empathy always beneficial or could it become a liability at some point?
Takers risk much everytime they try to take. While the end result might mean that they gain more with less expense then the maker, they risk to lose everything everytime a maker decides to defend his goods. Making is a more reasonnable, less risky mode of life.
There were actually some very compelling studies done by Axelrod/Trivers in the earlier 80s that showed reciprocal altruism is strongly favored by natural selection (which shows how bad our intuition can really be). Whereas you have;
Always punish/take
Always allow/make
Tit for Tat
Tit for tat is the most evolutionary stable (at least all studies thus far points to this finding)---and human beings demonstrate this in a variety of ways (barring an outlier).
LordofHats wrote: Yes. I can certainly speak to religious individuals claiming atheists are bad because they have no moral obligations. I hear it plenty often.
Yeah, there's been a few of them here on Off Topic. Anyone remember that guy who was claiming there'd never been a Christian serial killer?
I was more referring to people who dream of a completely "atheist" Shangri-La of a nation.
Yeah, and it was a fair point. There is a number of atheists who hold to this dream that without religion we'd all suddenly become perfectly rational voters who would bring a new utopia of scientific reason.
I was just commenting to say that, basically, as I guy that thinks democracy is pretty cool, I extend that to thinking that it's perfectly fine when people form their political views and voting decisions based on their religious beliefs (within reason of course - civil liberties aren't a matter for the voting public to decide on).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Whether these virtues exist in non-Christian cultures and religions is immaterial to the issue of whether Western people find them compelling. The reason Western people may find them compelling is that they resonate with the Christian heritage of Western culture.
Maybe go back and re-read those virtues. They're not particularly Christian.
LordofHats wrote: Yes. I can certainly speak to religious individuals claiming atheists are bad because they have no moral obligations. I hear it plenty often.
Yeah, there's been a few of them here on Off Topic. Anyone remember that guy who was claiming there'd never been a Christian serial killer?
"There were no Christian serial killers, because if you believe in Jesus you don't kill. So if somebody is a serial killer then it shows he wasn't really Christian!"
Was it something like that?
For the OT:
I can see the desire for an Atheist like the author to want to prove that you can have morality without religion. But dressing it up like a pseudo religion ('virtues/commandments" and meeting in a "church") probably doesn't help to advance his goal. It just makes the waters muddy again.
d-usa wrote: What evolutionary benefit does empathy towards other people create? Or empathy towards another species?
Parental empathy aside.
It produces a larger, stronger tribe. In showing a tribesman sympathy and helping him now, he is likely to be another strong, healthy member of the tribe when another tribe comes threatening our land and we need to defend it.
Empathy towards animals facilitates inter-species co-operation (humans and dogs coming to work together was a tremendous boost to both species).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: What is the benefit/purpose of evolution?
As Kovnik Obama says - there isn't one. It is a process we observe, what comes of it it just what comes of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: But if evolution makes you more adapt to surviving in your environment, empathy wouldn't help our species. Why give away resources that I gathered because I have a genetic advantage of some kind and give them to somebody that is too weak? Wouldn't that diminish my genetic advantage and hurt the species?
Only if one assumes that the weakest of the tribe are only weak because they are genetically inferior. They could simply be younger, unlucky (didn't find anything to eat) or temporarily sick/injured.
Keeping a tribe large and full of healthy members is much more important than the possible long term benefit of drawing out weaker genes.
And note that getting fed by the sympathy of other tribesmen doesn't mean you get to pass your genes on. The alpha males still get all the booty.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: But can evolution and empathy result in the same argument of "makers vs takers"? Is empathy always beneficial or could it become a liability at some point?
Unlimited empathy would produce an evolutionary detriment.
Note that humans are not unlimited in their empathy. Instead our empathy is up to a point, and highly situational.
And just to clarify: I know I am one of the Christians that is willing to debate with Atheists on here. So I just wanted to make sure that my status as a "Christian" and my asking questions and throwing scenarios out there isn't creating the impression that I don't believe in evolution. I have just never spend all that much time studying it beyond the "strong genes give us an advantage, so we pass them on, weak genes get killed off" basic level.
d-usa wrote: "There were no Christian serial killers, because if you believe in Jesus you don't kill. So if somebody is a serial killer then it shows he wasn't really Christian!"
Was it something like that?
Yeah, but there was another step before that. The guy was entirely unaware of the serial killers who did have Christian backgrounds/beliefs, and when those killers were pointed out he did the no true scotsman thing like you guessed
I can see the desire for an Atheist like the author to want to prove that you can have morality without religion. But dressing it up like a pseudo religion ('virtues/commandments" and meeting in a "church") probably doesn't help to advance his goal. It just makes the waters muddy again.
It isn't just dressing it up like in religious trappings, it's that work like his has been already done perfectly well in humanism. The issue being, though, that humanism is secular rather than atheist, it looks to establish proper human behaviour without making any comment on whether or not there's a God.
To people who look to atheism as a tribal identity that kind of thing isn't good enough. They need a purely atheist creed, even if it means re-inventing the wheel. Not that Botton is that kind of atheist, but he has to write for the market, and unfortunately that's what the atheist market looks like right now.
Putting on your gathering in a church is just a trick to get a bit more media coverage, I think.
To people who look to atheism as a tribal identity that kind of thing isn't good enough. They need a purely atheist creed, even if it means re-inventing the wheel. Not that Botton is that kind of atheist, but he has to write for the market, and unfortunately that's what the atheist market looks like right now.
Sometimes I become annoyed by that, but then I think about how many atheists quote Nietzsche, and about how so many of them are now gazing deeply into their own abyss.
To people who look to atheism as a tribal identity that kind of thing isn't good enough. They need a purely atheist creed, even if it means re-inventing the wheel. Not that Botton is that kind of atheist, but he has to write for the market, and unfortunately that's what the atheist market looks like right now.
Sometimes I become annoyed by that, but then I think about how many atheists quote Nietzsche, and about how so many of them are now gazing deeply into their own abyss.
That's when I smile, and go about my day.
Nietzsche is an interesting dude. "Was ist also Wahrheit? Ein bewegliches Heer von Metaphern..."
Also, die Wahrheit ist ein bewegliches Heer von Metaphern. I love this gak.
Nietzsche is an interesting dude. "Was ist also Wahrheit? Ein bewegliches Heer von Metaphern..."
Also, die Wahrheit ist ein bewegliches Heer von Metaphern. I love this gak.
Nietzsche is possibly philosophy's greatest woobie. His actual life aside, the degree to which he was (and is) misinterpreted is a crime against a bright man.
The common "God is dead" quote emphasizes this. Nietzsche viewed the establishment (grounded in religion) as harmful, and wanted to believe* it was at an end, and wanted man to be forced to rise above it in order to become Übermensch (men without the need for God). Then came National Socialism. And then came idiot college kids that have never read The Gay Science or Thus Spoke Zarathustra**.
Nietzsche is an interesting dude. "Was ist also Wahrheit? Ein bewegliches Heer von Metaphern..."
Also, die Wahrheit ist ein bewegliches Heer von Metaphern. I love this gak.
Nietzsche is possibly philosophy's greatest woobie. His actual life aside, the degree to which he was (and is) misinterpreted is a crime against a bright man.
The common "God is dead" quote emphasizes this. Nietzsche viewed the establishment (grounded in religion) as harmful, and wanted to believe* it was at an end, and wanted man to be forced to rise above it in order to become Übermensch (men without the need for God). Then came National Socialism. And then came idiot college kids that have never read The Gay Science or Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
*I think he knew it wasn't.
Yeah, one of my professor's who does a lot of research on Nietzsche said basically the same thing. That is, that he is misinterpreted like crazy. I've wondered if it's due to reading him in translation. As a native English speaker, one of the weirdest experiences I've had in academia was reading some Nietzsche in German, then reading a translation of the same text in English, and realizing that it was actually easier to read it in German and that the German version of the text made way more sense than the English version. I thought I would be saving myself some time and effort by reading it in English and about a paragraph or two into the English text I was like, "Lol, feth this."
That's not to say that the German version is easy, by any stretch. It's definitely not light reading. But I don't know, something about the English text just seemed weird to me.
I once tried to read Zarathustra, but the translation was so god-awful that it never got particularly far before everything just stopped making sense entirely.
...That said, I don't quote Nietzsche, so I think it's all okay in the end.
Also, to add to how much of a woobie he was, after he died, didn't his bigoted sister edit the gak out of his works to make them into the Nazi calling card they ended up being for a while?
sebster wrote: Maybe go back and re-read those virtues. They're not particularly Christian.
I think what you mean is, "they're not explicitly Christian." Of course, my comment was that their relevance is possible in a culture shaped by Christianity.
For a (very) simplistic scenario which might encourage empathy, try the Prisoner's Dilemma.
On an entirely individual level, it generally makes sense to choose the 'betray' option - but if everyone does that then everyone loses out. However, once you start applying the concept to a society rather than an individual, it makes sense for the co-operative traits to survive. Except that for a few individuals living in an otherwise cooperative society, betrayal can still help, primarily because most other people are cooperative.
Now if you actually take a look at mankind, a small proportion of people are psychopaths - that is they display significantly reduced or no empathy. This is presumably an optimal proportion - any more and the cooperative behaviour would break down, disadvantaging everyone. any less and an evolutionary niche is missed that would otherwise benefit some individuals.
Empathy can therefore be looked upon as an evolutionary trait that ensures the survival of societies - and societies then benefit an individual's survival. Those displaying reduced empathy are actually somewhat parasitical - living off their host (society) without benefiting that society.
Manchu wrote: I think what you mean is, "they're not explicitly Christian." Of course, my comment was that their relevance is possible in a culture shaped by Christianity.
No, I mean they're not uniquely Christian. Such values are found in cultures all around the world, having developed without any Christian influence.
Now, they may have developed in our societies through Christian institutions, but that doesn't make them purely Christian virtues.
d-usa wrote: And feeding the sick grandparents who can't help hunt or cook the mammoth anymore helps how?
They take care of the kids, while you're off raiding the other village. But then again at this level of civilization, everyone's dead by the time they are 30...
sebster wrote: No, I mean they're not uniquely Christian. Such values are found in cultures all around the world, having developed without any Christian influence.
Now, they may have developed in our societies through Christian institutions, but that doesn't make them purely Christian virtues.
You're just circling back to where I started. Whether non-Western cultures developed similar values is itself questionable. There is an imperial tendency to syncretism among Westerners on this point. In any case, as I mentioned, the point is immaterial to whether Western people find such values compelling. This isn't a question of being unique much less "pure"; rather, this is an issue of context. The Western context is inescapably Christian.
An atheist church? What the... What do they even do? Talk about their lack of faith to each other. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion soon which promotes the worship of the Big bang Event. The morals are interesting but not my cup of tea, I prefer the Asatruan 9 noble virtues. Courage, truth, honour, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, Self Reliance and preservation. Overall, I don't think the morals and church will catch on to the majority of the atheist community because a lot of realists and nihilists would not care about it.
rockerbikie wrote: An atheist church? What the... What do they even do? Talk about their lack of faith to each other. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion soon which promotes the worship of the Big bang Event. The morals are interesting but not my cup of tea, I prefer the Asatruan 9 noble virtues. Courage, truth, honour, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, Self Reliance and preservation. Overall, I don't think the morals and church will catch on to the majority of the atheist community because a lot of realists and nihilists would not care about it.
rockerbikie wrote: An atheist church? What the... What do they even do? Talk about their lack of faith to each other. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion soon which promotes the worship of the Big bang Event. The morals are interesting but not my cup of tea, I prefer the Asatruan 9 noble virtues. Courage, truth, honour, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, Self Reliance and preservation. Overall, I don't think the morals and church will catch on to the majority of the atheist community because a lot of realists and nihilists would not care about it.
Are you a pagan?
By many standards, yes. I prefer the phrase Asatruan.
rockerbikie wrote: An atheist church? What the... What do they even do? Talk about their lack of faith to each other. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion soon which promotes the worship of the Big bang Event. The morals are interesting but not my cup of tea, I prefer the Asatruan 9 noble virtues. Courage, truth, honour, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, Self Reliance and preservation. Overall, I don't think the morals and church will catch on to the majority of the atheist community because a lot of realists and nihilists would not care about it.
Are you a pagan?
By many standards, yes. I prefer the phrase Asatruan.
rockerbikie wrote: An atheist church? What the... What do they even do? Talk about their lack of faith to each other. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a religion soon which promotes the worship of the Big bang Event. The morals are interesting but not my cup of tea, I prefer the Asatruan 9 noble virtues. Courage, truth, honour, fidelity, discipline, hospitality, Self Reliance and preservation. Overall, I don't think the morals and church will catch on to the majority of the atheist community because a lot of realists and nihilists would not care about it.
Are you a pagan?
By many standards, yes. I prefer the phrase Asatruan.
That's pretty neat!
Check out Asatru Folk Assembly if you are curious in what I believe. Some Nazi scumbags try to be an Asatruan but they can't be a true on because my religion teaches tolerance between races and culture. The gods and humans tolerate each other despite their differences. Why should we not tolerate each other.
Yeah, I know a bit about the neo-pagan/reconstructionist/awesome religions, but not enough to take the plunge myself (yet!). Personally leaning towards a Celtic direction instead of Norse myself. I hate the Nazi scumbags in the religion, they're only harming the movement.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Yeah, I know a bit about the neo-pagan/reconstructionist/awesome religions, but not enough to take the plunge myself (yet!). Personally leaning towards a Celtic direction instead of Norse myself. I hate the Nazi scumbags in the religion, they're only harming the movement.
I have taken a look at the Norse, Celtic, Slavic, Russian, Greek/Roman and Persian. I warn you man, Wiccans have stolen a lot of Celtic culture. Pick the one which feels the most right for you. I picked Norse for example because I am descended from the line of Yngling.
Cool, thanks for that! From the house of Yngling? That's sick! I am of mixed blood, but my Irish side probably is a bit of Norse, Viking and Celtic (coming from Dublin and Tipperary). I'll look into all of them. And I'll try my best to avoid Wicca!
Manchu wrote: You're just circling back to where I started. Whether non-Western cultures developed similar values is itself questionable. There is an imperial tendency to syncretism among Westerners on this point. In any case, as I mentioned, the point is immaterial to whether Western people find such values compelling. This isn't a question of being unique much less "pure"; rather, this is an issue of context. The Western context is inescapably Christian.
Sure, the context here has a heavy Christian context. Hence framing them as 10 commandments and all the rest.
The point being, so what? That doesn't mean we only reached those values because of the Christian upbringing (otherwise you'd have to argue that no such values are found outside of a Western context, which you've already conceded isn't true).
It seems obvious to me that since these commandments or whatever we are calling them came from the "western context" that this is the only context that is actually relevant to their origin.
sebster wrote: No, I mean they're not uniquely Christian. Such values are found in cultures all around the world, having developed without any Christian influence.
Now, they may have developed in our societies through Christian institutions, but that doesn't make them purely Christian virtues.
You're just circling back to where I started. Whether non-Western cultures developed similar values is itself questionable. There is an imperial tendency to syncretism among Westerners on this point. In any case, as I mentioned, the point is immaterial to whether Western people find such values compelling. This isn't a question of being unique much less "pure"; rather, this is an issue of context. The Western context is inescapably Christian.
The notion that morals come from Christianity makes me chuckle, especially if what your reading is the bible. Yes I admit there are some nice stories that can be cherry-picked which demonstrate good morals but there are others which are very immoral, at the time it was written let alone nowadays.
Although this comes from a mathematical point of view it does often hold water in real life: In order to prove that something is true you are required to prove all cases, in order to prove something is false you need only one example which is false.
I'm including an email my Dad sent me, I apologize for the wall of text but I found it very enlightening (no pun intended).
TL;DR There are many examples in the bible that are down-right immoral, morals must be part of the human condition via evolution as explained earlier in thread and not given to us via this manuscript or a divine being.
Just in case you take a "certain book" recommended for children too seriously, please read this letter.
Homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a U.S. man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura: Why Can’t I Own a Canadian?
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God, if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football, if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your adoring fan.James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special EducationUniversity of Virginia
PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)
That argument was made against using Leviticus as an excuse to hate homosexuals, and doesn't really work as good example of rejecting the Bible as an immoral work. It also doesn't apply to many, if not most Christians. It feels like something an angst riddled kid would copy and paste from another website either in an attempt to shock, and/or that didn't understand the context, but thought it seemed edgy.
Don't be that guy. No one likes that guy, even other atheists.
Well, if part of your holy book is the Jewish holy book, then shouldn't you have very similar principles and laws, should you be from a pure Christian or Jewish country?
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Well, if part of your holy book is the Jewish holy book, then shouldn't you have very similar principles and laws, should you be from a pure Christian or Jewish country?
No. Understanding history doesn't mean being chained to it. It is akin to thinking that because Nazi Germany is in a history book that Germans must still adhere to Nazism. It is about lineage, and how one gets from point A to B.
That doesn't really make much sense. I'm not referring to history. The old testament is the Torah! If Christians follow the teachings in the Bible, then shouldn't you also follow the teachings in the Old Testament? And if the Old Testament is the Torah, then you should also follow the laws set out for Jews.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Christianity IS a Semitic religion though, and the Old Testament is the Torah, so why not?
What I've heard on the matter amounts to the old testament being little more than backstory, with all its various tenets rendered null and void by the new testament, usually as a weasely point of defense against attacks quoting the various lunatic laws from the old testament. Of course, it rather falls flat on its face when christian leaders/idealogues draw just as heavily from the old testament as they do from elsewhere.
I cannot imagine that morality can come from an ancient book of folktales and laws; which is not to say that it cannot contain moral points, but rather they can only be apparent to someone who is already aware of them, at least on some level. Which of course by necessity falls back upon the social instincts of humans more than anything else: you know instinctively that antisocial behavior is unacceptable, here's a book that says as much (if cryptically, further obfuscated by poor translations and changing cultural norms), leading unfortunately to a conclusion akin to "wow this book says something my gut says is true, everything else it says must be too!"
Ahtman wrote: That argument was made against using Leviticus as an excuse to hate homosexuals, and doesn't really work as good example of rejecting the Bible as an immoral work. It also doesn't apply to many, if not most Christians. It feels like something an angst riddled kid would copy and paste from another website either in an attempt to shock, and/or that didn't understand the context, but thought it seemed edgy.
Don't be that guy. No one likes that guy, even other atheists.
*Disclaimer* I'm not saying that all religious people are immoral, they are like all people, some are and some aren't. I suppose the true test is whether as a percentage more religious people are moral than non-religious but as this is impossible to determine we can never say.
Sorry for being "that guy", just seemed an apt and interesting wall of text. It genuinely shocked me to read it and then I went through Lev. and it's all there. I understand that modern Christianity has moved away from certain parts of the bible (the old testament being part of the bible, and therefore the unchangeable and true word of God). There are also many examples in the new testament that would make any person shudder with it's immorality.
Most of Lev. is very immoral, and part of the bible, you can't write off bits (e.g. someone who gave loads to charity but is then found to have abused kids, that person is immoral, you can't just say that bits bad but the charity stuff was lovely.)
You can justify this with it being written before our time and/or say that certain things are just figurative, but then you as a person, or persons, are re-writing the bible with your own ideas, therefore changing the word of God.
The bible has also been re-translated (changed) many times.
The good stories that are picked out are chosen by people, and determined with their in-built morality without the need of teachings from the bible, that was my only point.
Of course you are, as you are talking about the Old Testemant, which is, essentially, a series of books about the history of the Hebrew god and his relationship to the Hebrews. The point of its inclusion is to contextualize what is to come, not to lay out a second set of rules in parallel with the teachings of Jesus Christ. You can't both follow "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" at the same time. The point of the New Testament is to lay out the (wait for it) new way of thinking and approaching mankind and G-d. The Old Testemant tells how it got to that point as well as laying a foundation for what was changed. We aren't talking about a book of rules like for a sport in which the only contents are just rules. It contains history, stories, metaphors, poems, and guidelines in an attempt to pass down not just rules, but also a sense of who they were, and who we might become. It is an incredibly complex tome. If Christians had to be Jews and follow (old) Jewish law, then they wouldn't be Christians, they would be Jews. They are different religions, with different beliefs (like say believing that the messiah has arrived), but a shared history. I have a shared history with the Iroquois nation, but that doesn't make me an Iroquois. Having an Old Testament doesn't make Christians into Jews.
DacGerm wrote: *Disclaimer* I'm not saying that all religious people are immoral
And I didn't say you said that, I said your post was bad. for a number of reasons.
DacGerm wrote: Sorry for being "that guy", just seemed an apt and interesting wall of text.
Actually, you are more of 'That guy' for "in case you take a "certain book" recommended for children too seriously, please read this letter". It also still doesn't seem like you understand the context of what you posted.
The Old Testament Covenant was given to a very specific group of people in a very specific place for a very specific time in history. Trying to paint Christianity in a broad brush because they don't follow some of the laws that were never given to them is pretty dumb, even if there is a shared history between the two faiths.
The Old Testament if no irrelevant and Christians are not being hypocritical when they draw on it to learn without following the old covenant since the old laws were never ours to follow. It served a specific purpose to the people it was given to.
You're basically saying that we don't really need what the Old Testament said, just elements of the history and background. Therefore, as a religious text, it's irrelevant. I don't need a book with Ogham inscriptions to understand Celtic paganism, do I? Or a book about Viking runes to understand Asatruism? But if your church leaders are going to quote it and its laws, then it gives the impression that, in fact, you do try to follow the Old Testament. And if you don't need to follow the laws, then why would you include it in your bible?
Christianity is a hodge-podge of so many religions it's ridiculous.
DacGerm wrote: *Disclaimer* I'm not saying that all religious people are immoral
And I didn't say you said that, I said your post was bad. for a number of reasons.
DacGerm wrote: Sorry for being "that guy", just seemed an apt and interesting wall of text.
Actually, you are more of 'That guy' for "in case you take a "certain book" recommended for children too seriously, please read this letter". It also still doesn't seem like you understand the context of what you posted.
I know you didn't say that, I put it in after because I didn't want to cause any offence with what I wrote below that, which had nothing to do with Christianity as a whole, just that morals do not come from Christian teachings.
The bit "in case you take" etc, that was in the original email, and not written by me, looking back it is exceptionally patronising but I think the guy writing it thought that he was justified as he was replying to something just as patronising. That said, can't fight fire with fire.
I should learn to quote better and have put that whole thing in quotes (starting at that line), my bad. I might just do that.
How do you know which bits of the bible are valid though, who tells you, do you decide yourself?
Considering that none of the explanations have anything to do with what you wrote, and that it is obvious that you already have your mind made up and hold steadfast in your "it's in your book so you must be Jewish or why else include it" though, there isn't really any point in talking about it.
But yes, do better understand one thing you need to know the history of another related thing. Pretty basic really.
d-usa wrote: Considering that none of the explanations have anything to do with what you wrote, and that it is obvious that you already have your mind made up and hold steadfast in your "it's in your book so you must be Jewish or why else include it" though, there isn't really any point in talking about it.
But yes, do better understand one thing you need to know the history of another related thing. Pretty basic really.
That makes sense, I apologise if I set the other guy off. Do you see the whole bible like this, I could understand that.
DacGerm wrote: How do you know which bits of the bible are valid though, who tells you, do you decide yourself?
Depends on the person I would suppose. Some let an organization tell them, some decide for themselves. Some research and spend a great deal of time and energy struggling over it, and others just take it as it is.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: You're basically saying that we don't really need what the Old Testament said, just elements of the history and background.
You know what's fun?
Trolling religious threads with false dichotomy fallacies. Either you follow the parts of the Old Testament that in many cases Jesus himself flouted, or you aren't Christian.
No, you're made up in your mind. When I go to church, the Old Testament is referred to pretty much every time. I've watched videos of pastors who quote the Old Testament and its laws. Some of the first biblical stories a child learns is the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark - both are from the Old Testament. Today in history, when watching something about Segregation, there was this southern pastor who was referencing some obscure law in the Old Testament on why segregation was for god. This therefore makes me feel that Christians are supposed to follow the Old Testament. I'm not sure what denomination you are, but that's what I've been taught.
I never said that Christians are "Jewish". The religion itself, much like Islam, is Semitic in origin. Don't put words into my mouth. And anyway, why are you taking it as such a major insult?
Again, no, we don't really need to know the history of another related thing. To fully understand Economics, I don't need to know the history of Economics. Some case studies may be useful, but by no means is it necessary. To understand the Lord of the Rings, I don't need to have taken a degree in Anglo Saxon Norse and Celtic, nor would I need to know anything about the Anglo Saxons, Norse or Celtic peoples. To understand how the Singaporean government works, I don't need to know about how Singapore used to be the 14th state in Malaysia etc. etc. and how Singapore used Israeli training methods etc etc and now there are GRCs and SRCs etc. etc.
d-usa wrote: Considering that none of the explanations have anything to do with what you wrote, and that it is obvious that you already have your mind made up and hold steadfast in your "it's in your book so you must be Jewish or why else include it" though, there isn't really any point in talking about it.
But yes, do better understand one thing you need to know the history of another related thing. Pretty basic really.
That makes sense, I apologise if I set the other guy off. Do you see the whole bible like this, I could understand that.
Personally, I see the entire Bible as true. That doesn't mean it is an accurate historical text or that everything happened exactly as written. Let's take the first chapter of Genesis, for me it's a lesson that God created everything. I don't believe I means that God made everything one day a a time over 6 days. I believe that the lesson is that God created everything methodically and with a plan over a period of time. First came this, then that, and not all at once but over time. It doesn't set forth to explain how God created or exactly how long it took, just that He did. In that context it doesn't disprove evolution or geology, and it isn't disproven by that.
Many portions of the Bible tell the stories that God wants to tell to teach lessons and to predict future events (for the Israelites), not to teach history. In that regard the Bible is true as a historical book regarding the message and plan of God throughout history, but not necessarily as a historical text regarding factual recordings of actual events.
Many lessons and teachings from the Old Testament are useful and relevant to me as a Christian, and it laid out the message leading to the New Testament.
As to what most other Christians believe I can't really tell you other than that most mainstream denominations don't hold that Christianity falls under the old covenant.
DacGerm wrote: How do you know which bits of the bible are valid though, who tells you, do you decide yourself?
Depends on the person I would suppose. Some let an organization tell them, some decide for themselves. Some research and spend a great deal of time and energy struggling over it, and others just take it as it is.
But that doesn't mean that everything semetic is the same, follow the same teachings, or has the same outlook, so it doesn't make sense to say that because some ancient Jewish laws and history are included in a religious text that it must mean that Christians (which, to be honest just to broad a term to encompass the varieties of religious expression on the part of the followers of Jesus) have to follow those ancient laws of an earlier form o their religion.
d-usa wrote: Considering that none of the explanations have anything to do with what you wrote, and that it is obvious that you already have your mind made up and hold steadfast in your "it's in your book so you must be Jewish or why else include it" though, there isn't really any point in talking about it.
But yes, do better understand one thing you need to know the history of another related thing. Pretty basic really.
That makes sense, I apologise if I set the other guy off. Do you see the whole bible like this, I could understand that.
Personally, I see the entire Bible as true. That doesn't mean it is an accurate historical text or that everything happened exactly as written. Let's take the first chapter of Genesis, for me it's a lesson that God created everything. I don't believe I means that God made everything one day a a time over 6 days. I believe that the lesson is that God created everything methodically and with a plan over a period of time. First came this, then that, and not all at once but over time. It doesn't set forth to explain how God created or exactly how long it took, just that He did. In that context it doesn't disprove evolution or geology, and it isn't disproven by that.
Many portions of the Bible tell the stories that God wants to tell to teach lessons and to predict future events (for the Israelites), not to teach history. In that regard the Bible is true as a historical book regarding the message and plan of God throughout history, but not necessarily as a historical text regarding factual recordings of actual events.
Many lessons and teachings from the Old Testament are useful and relevant to me as a Christian, and it laid out the message leading to the New Testament.
As to what most other Christians believe I can't really tell you other than that most mainstream denominations don't hold that Christianity falls under the old covenant.
I can kind of understand that, I don't agree but I can see where your coming from, it's certainly one of the most thought through argument I've heard (not just forums). There are some bits though that I just couldn't gleam anything nice from, however abstractley I look at them, but each to their own.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: If it's irrelevant and superceded by the New Testament, why do you include it in the Bible?
That is a question for whatever Lateran Council decided what should be in the Bible. However, theologically I believe it is true that the Christ established a new covenant between God and Man, which supercedes the Old Testament covenant. Hence why Christians are not forbidden pork, for example.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: You're basically saying that we don't really need what the Old Testament said, just elements of the history and background. Therefore, as a religious text, it's irrelevant. I don't need a book with Ogham inscriptions to understand Celtic paganism, do I? Or a book about Viking runes to understand Asatruism? But if your church leaders are going to quote it and its laws, then it gives the impression that, in fact, you do try to follow the Old Testament. And if you don't need to follow the laws, then why would you include it in your bible?
Christianity is a hodge-podge of so many religions it's ridiculous.
Its rediculous only if you can't handle both complexity and simplicity.
Complexity. Old testament: This is the history of the furry guys with robes and mahtza balls. Its the histroy of the mother country.
Simplicity: New testament. Now that you know that here's the creed going forward: be excellent to each other people and quit being bags.
Like...ok?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Again, no, we don't really need to know the history of another related thing. To fully understand Economics, I don't need to know the history of Economics. Some case studies may be useful, but by no means is it necessary.
You don't need to know the basic history of economics to be an economist? So no history of Marxism, Feudalism, etc, just jump right into random walk (get it, jump into walking get it get it?)?
You can know the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and get a decent understanding of them.
Or you can study the history of the UK and the settlers, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers to really get an understanding of the thoughts and intentions of the writers of the Constitution.
Not even talking about Christianity here, but saying that you don't need to know the history of anything to understand anything is pretty dumb.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: To fully understand Economics, I don't need to know the history of Economics. Some case studies may be useful, but by no means is it necessary.
Actually, you really do need to know the history of economics to have a useful understanding of economic. People staring at demand and supply graphs in isolation and thinking they've got enough knowledge to champion or attack economic theories is kind of why the general understanding economics is in such a dreadful place. And even at the academic level, poor understanding of economic history has led to some pretty theories that just don't work - the whole of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (certainly the strong form, and likely the weak form as well) is completely shot down by a proper understanding of the existance of market bubbles throughout history.
Anyhow, to answer your greater question, there's a lot of ways in the New Testament to see why the rules of the Old Testament don't apply anymore, but my favourite, and the one I think much of the debate on the issue comes from is in Acts of the Apostles. In this, Peter is a leader in the new church, and has a dream. In this dream he sees all manner of forbidden food - pig, shellfish etc, and he says he can't eat these foods, but a voice says to him "Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean."
Which is a pretty damn good reason, religiously speaking, to stop worrying about all that purity nonsense and keeping yourself pure from the world God created.
But there's a split in how this story is understood - because from the vision God was only literally talking about food. So now it's okay to eat shellfish, but all the other laws about homosexuality and the rest, well they would still apply. Except if you read the whole of the story, that's not how Peter understood it. He then received a knock on the door, it's from a Roman Centurion - about as unclean as people can get, and someone that under the old rules, Peter should never have welcomed into his home. And yet Peter does, saying "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."
And so others have interpreted Peter's vision as a rejection of all of the Old Testament's ideas of purity.
And that's why some Christians think that just as we can now eat bacon, so is it also alright to be or to accept homosexuality. While others think that Peter got the story all wrong and God was just talking about crabcakes.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: To fully understand Economics, I don't need to know the history of Economics. Some case studies may be useful, but by no means is it necessary.
Actually, you really do need to know the history of economics to have a useful understanding of economic. People staring at demand and supply graphs in isolation and thinking they've got enough knowledge to champion or attack economic theories is kind of why the general understanding economics is in such a dreadful place. And even at the academic level, poor understanding of economic history has led to some pretty theories that just don't work - the whole of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (certainly the strong form, and likely the weak form as well) is completely shot down by a proper understanding of the existance of market bubbles throughout history.
Anyhow, to answer your greater question, there's a lot of ways in the New Testament to see why the rules of the Old Testament don't apply anymore, but my favourite, and the one I think much of the debate on the issue comes from is in Acts of the Apostles. In this, Peter is a leader in the new church, and has a dream. In this dream he sees all manner of forbidden food - pig, shellfish etc, and he says he can't eat these foods, but a voice says to him "Don't call anything unclean that God has made clean."
Which is a pretty damn good reason, religiously speaking, to stop worrying about all that purity nonsense and keeping yourself pure from the world God created.
But there's a split in how this story is understood - because from the vision God was only literally talking about food. So now it's okay to eat shellfish, but all the other laws about homosexuality and the rest, well they would still apply. Except if you read the whole of the story, that's not how Peter understood it. He then received a knock on the door, it's from a Roman Centurion - about as unclean as people can get, and someone that under the old rules, Peter should never have welcomed into his home. And yet Peter does, saying "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."
And so others have interpreted Peter's vision as a rejection of all of the Old Testament's ideas of purity.
And that's why some Christians think that just as we can now eat bacon, so is it also alright to be or to accept homosexuality. While others think that Peter got the story all wrong and God was just talking about crabcakes.
Ha, this is the only time I've actually seen an answer to the question I've always wondered (IE, if Leviticus condemns homosexuality, why do most of these hardliners still eat bacon and do all kinds of other stuff forbidden by Leviticus?). Thanks, Seb!
RatBot wrote: Ha, this is the only time I've actually seen an answer to the question I've always wondered (IE, if Leviticus condemns homosexuality, why do most of these hardliners still eat bacon and do all kinds of other stuff forbidden by Leviticus?). Thanks, Seb!
Ha, this is the only time I've actually seen an answer to the question I've always wondered (IE, if Leviticus condemns homosexuality, why do most of these hardliners still eat bacon and do all kinds of other stuff forbidden by Leviticus?). Thanks, Seb!
Well, there are also a number of prohibitions against homosexuality within the the NT, and one must not discount readings of preference. Some (very few) people treat the NT prohibitions as confirming evidence of the OT prohibitions.
Ha, this is the only time I've actually seen an answer to the question I've always wondered (IE, if Leviticus condemns homosexuality, why do most of these hardliners still eat bacon and do all kinds of other stuff forbidden by Leviticus?). Thanks, Seb!
Well, there are also a number of prohibitions against homosexuality within the the NT, and one must not discount readings of preference. Some (very few) people treat the NT prohibitions as confirming evidence of the OT prohibitions.
That's also true, but I generally see people trot out Leviticus far more frequently than the NT proscriptions.
dogma wrote: Well, there are also a number of prohibitions against homosexuality within the the NT, and one must not discount readings of preference. Some (very few) people treat the NT prohibitions as confirming evidence of the OT prohibitions.
Sure, but they're all quite ambiguous. Whether they refer to homosexuality, or to male prostitutes/pederasts/the exploitation of younger men once they'd become adults in their own right etc... is a matter of considerable debate.
I think it is fair to say that if there had been no historic condemnation of heterosexuality, those passages would have been interpreted very differently. But I think its also fair to say that given there was an historic condemnation of homosexuality, then a lot of the interpretations that look to narrow the definition down to a very specific kind of homosexuality start to look pretty contrived.
So... everyone kinds of gets to make of it whatever they please.
dogma wrote: Well, there are also a number of prohibitions against homosexuality within the the NT, and one must not discount readings of preference. Some (very few) people treat the NT prohibitions as confirming evidence of the OT prohibitions.
Sure, but they're all quite ambiguous. Whether they refer to homosexuality, or to male prostitutes/pederasts/the exploitation of younger men once they'd become adults in their own right etc... is a matter of considerable debate.
I think it is fair to say that if there had been no historic condemnation of heterosexuality, those passages would have been interpreted very differently. But I think its also fair to say that given there was an historic condemnation of homosexuality, then a lot of the interpretations that look to narrow the definition down to a very specific kind of homosexuality start to look pretty contrived.
So... everyone kinds of gets to make of it whatever they please.
It's not just homosexuality in the New Testament though, there are bits about slavery (endorsing it, especially the bit explaining how best to whip etc), horrible sexism which led woman to be second class citizens for years (to some extent still are now) and many many more.
There are also numerous bits in the New Testament about how the Old Testament is the law of God and should be obeyed word for word.
I can quote where some examples of these in the New Testament if you like.
Of course everything is down to "interpretation", but you can intemperate a duck as a swan but you'd be plain wrong.
bags.
