Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/02/05 11:34:12
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
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.
2013/02/05 11:52:45
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
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
2013/02/05 11:55:12
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
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.
2013/02/05 12:47:29
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
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".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/05 14:04:32
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"?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2013/02/05 15:24:35
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
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.
2013/02/05 15:57:00
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
He is a true Scotsman, and only a true Scotsman can define a true Christian.
See, I google image "True Scotsman"... it's definitely not safe.
I also like how the only related search was "under kilt".
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
2013/02/05 16:06:11
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
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.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2013/02/05 16:39:19
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
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 message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/05 16:39:49
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2013/02/05 18:20:41
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
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.
*yeah, right.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2013/02/05 20:46:54
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
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?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2013/02/05 21:13:17
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
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.
2013/02/05 22:41:38
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/05 22:42:14
I RIDE FOR DOOMTHUMBS!
2013/02/05 22:44:07
Subject: Atheism -- two interesting pieces in the press.
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.
) 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.
