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.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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!

Any representative government that represents a plurality of religious people is going to be influenced by religion.

Best get used to the idea.

 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.

GG

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
The Author of course..believed to be Moses.

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."

 daedalus wrote:

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.)?

I loo forward to your responses...

 Monster Rain wrote:

Best get used to the idea.

While you had better get used to the idea that any truly democratic government will only take notice of religious inflluence via the ballot box.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Any representative government that represents a plurality of religious people is going to be influenced by religion.

Best get used to the idea.

Used to it?

I think it's a good thing.

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?

It cannot be ignored that much of western morality has been mediated through Christianity, though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It cannot be ignored that much of western morality has been mediated through Christianity, though.

Yes. I can certainly speak to religious individuals claiming atheists are bad because they have no moral obligations. I hear it plenty often.

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!

Palindrome wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

Best get used to the idea.

While you had better get used to the idea that any truly democratic government will only take notice of religious inflluence via the ballot box.

I'm trying to figure out how this isn't exactly what I just said. Religious people voting = religious influence in representative government.

Take a breath.

sebster wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Any representative government that represents a plurality of religious people is going to be influenced by religion.

Best get used to the idea.

Used to it?

I think it's a good thing.

As do I.

I was more referring to people who dream of a completely "atheist" Shangri-La of a nation.

 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).

ALL HAIL ATHE, OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR!

Atheist commandments and atheist churches? Thanks guys, this will really shut up all those annoying people who keep insisting that atheism is a religion...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:

As do I.

I was more referring to people who dream of a completely "atheist" Shangri-La of a nation.

Well, if the current trend of declining of the religiosity in Europe continues we'll soon have many de-facto atheistic nations.

I'm looking forward to that.

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:


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.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 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.

 xole wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 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".

 Manchu wrote:

 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.


inb4 god made it happen