Atheism will eat itself

[MkII]

The Christian thing to do is save the majority of lives - again, it's the question that's important. Why is this the case?

 

Can Christianity be a source of morality with absolutes causing problems like this?

1. I don't think you're right. That isn't necessarily the morally correct answer from a Christian perspective.

2. You're discounting the direct influence of a living God. The way you said that seems to say that Biblical rulings overrule God.

 

You have to admit that it would be very likely that some people have had a very real Hell imposed on them. I know people that have - believe me or not.

Well you are imposing hell on yourself right now I presume, but anyway ...

I think the point is moot because we're talking evil done in the name of Christianity again, and I'd like to rest this point. No problem if you think there's mileage in it of course.

 

In your opinion. By your logic we should allow every culture to impose it's religious morality on it's own children. All religions consider themselves better than each other with a monopoly on truth. The only balance is an atheistic point of view. Why not support my ideal of no underlying agenda or bias.

A non religious point of view would produce what we have today. An ever present push on moral standards, brought to mass attention recently by the Ross/ Brand incident. Don't you feel that boundaries are constantly stretched? It seems comedy, film, etc etc, gets closer to the knuckle all the time. Suddenly with Ross/ Brand the media is scared and considering the responsibility of it's unreigned freedoms.

Our predisposition today leans towards freedom of the individual over moral constraint. No I don't think that a neutral position is right. It is your responsibility as an adult to provide moral guidance to children. No question.

 

I don't think any one religion has a monopoly on the truth. There's a rich resource that shouldn't be discounted/ wiped out.

 

*mark: The trash spouted by society is the strongest indoctrination there is.

*gwendes: Trash? You mean that people are openly atheist?

*mark: No. That people live outside Christian morals.

*gwendes: Even the poor people like me that live within your modern interpretation of Christian morals (which just so happens to be very similiar to the law) but that are spiritually dead?

I'm gonna pass on this one too.

Except to say that our laws are based on Christian ideals

 

It's a valid critisism.

yup

 

If you read 'The Selfish Gene' you'll learn a lot about the work he was doing leading up to it's publication.

...in a past, not-so-profitable life

 

It's easy to 'force' children. So easy you don't even need to force. I told my friend's kid last night that I was one hundred years old - no problem! (I corrected my 'mistake' and the intention was not to mislead - it was to educate!)

 

Children are programmed to believe. Just look around you.

Covered

 

I don't believe they are Jesus' stances. I believe they are innate human stances.

So you agree with them then? (Chicken )

 

I'm arguing that 'Christian morality' isn't the best option simply because it is Christian. A much better approach, in my opinion is to reject the idea that there is a divine good and bad.

I think this idea of "a divine good and bad" is an anti religious fallacy. What has an anti religious society to do though? A new world order makes up it's own laws as best it can.

 

An atheist and Christian individual could make equally good or bad teachers of morality - therefore it isn't a matter of faith. Therefore, as we need an external measure all schools should be without faith and morality should be derived from the world around us, discussion and questions.

I disagree of course. An atheist denies Christian morality ultimately. The world around us is a poor measure, it can vary in moral correctness. I'd rather have a person committed to good morals looking after my children than a person who is, to me, confused by religion and their moral standing. That may equally apply to Christians and non Christians. Perhaps I'd prefer yourself to someone that believes in spiritualism and insidiously promotes astrology or luck for example.

[witch]

Sounds contradictory that your moral standards are inherited Christian ones but you deny those they mimic any credit.

 

Again - I didn't say that they were inherited Christian ones, the point I was trying to make (badly, obviously!) was that these are the basic morals that underpin life and I am really not happy about you appropriating them as being 'started' by the Christians - there were morals before Christianity,I am sure.

Sometimes I think you are claiming that everything good that has ever happened was done or funded or started by Christians - and those who came before (pagans? Jews? etc etc) did nothing to contribute to anything.

 

What differentiates me from my Christian friends is that they believe that there is no other way to God other than through Christ, and I do not.

They no more believe that society is perfect than I do. If people followed the basic morals I spoke of, then it would be a lot closer to perfect - whether Christian or not.

 

Christianity is a fairly 'new' religion in the world you know

[MkII]

@witch

 

Sorry, loose use of the word 'inherited'. They're the same, is more what I meant. Yes I agree that moral origins predate Christianity. Although from Biblical texts it's apparent that early Judaic morals were quite primitive, so for that society at least the set accepted when Jesus defined them were the first of their kind. There's no denying tho' the spooky similarity between Christian morals and western secular morals. The difference is though, is that as a Christian, you own those morals. As a non Christian, they're almost impositions. "Dictates of your magic man", as an atheist I know would say.

 

As I've said, I have a lot of respect for primitive religions. Paganism not so much although I appreciate the draw there. I re-assert my claim tho' that Jesus is unique in religions as a way to God not possible with any other washing powder.

[witch]

@witch

 

The difference is though, is that as a Christian, you own those morals. As a non Christian, they're almost impositions.

 

Sorry, I really don't understand what you mean by 'almost impositions'

Please tell me that you are not saying that only Christians can have morals and the rest of us have to have them imposed on us otherwise we would be feral?!

 

Why do you think that you, as a Christian, 'own' morals? I don't dispute that the Christians helped shape a strong moral code but I really can't see that they are entirely responsible for it all. See my previous post.

 

As as for not having much time for pagans - can you tell me why? Is it because we don't worship one God? If that is the case then you don't have much time for Hindus presumably?

[MkII]

Sorry, I really don't understand what you mean by 'almost impositions'

Please tell me that you are not saying that only Christians can have morals and the rest of us have to have them imposed on us otherwise we would be feral?!

 

Why do you think that you, as a Christian, 'own' morals? I don't dispute that the Christians helped shape a strong moral code but I really can't see that they are entirely responsible for it all. See my previous post.

That was my personal experience. The feeling is that you didn't come up with stuff like morals, but grew up being taught to learn what's right and wrong. So then you step into a direct relationship with the 'lawgiver'/ whatever, and you suddenly come up with the rule book yourself. Laws backup what you're thinking. Maybe that's why gwendes is always banging on about repression. Lots of religious stuff is uncomfortable. That doesn't make it wrong tho'. I'm sure this conversation wouldn't have happened with someone from India. They just accept the differences between secular and religious moral standards. Religion is no longer our intellectual currency like it is theirs.

 

As as for not having much time for pagans - can you tell me why? Is it because we don't worship one God? If that is the case then you don't have much time for Hindus presumably?

The Paganism I know is a bit soft. I see it as a search for one's own spiritual roots. I explored it myself once. It mixes with New Age philosophy that I see as mostly superstition. Having said that I'd always like to keep an open mind that it has something valuable. I respect most primitive faiths. A singular entity is of no importance to me when assessing the validity of any faith system. Heck I can even dig atheism *winks at gwendes*

Edited January 25, 2009 by MkII
added last sentance

[MkII]

Can I focus on morals a bit..

 

A Christian teacher in the school I worked at was quite proactive with the kids. I used to walk homewith him occasionally and he'd tell off kids in the street for 'showing their midriff' for example. I'd get embarrassed and think this a bit of an intrusion into in this case, this 13yr old girls private life. But then I think it's me that's wrong. Don't we as adults have a responsibility to kids to let them know what we think of their actions?

 

He single handedly took on the school about their reward scheme, focusing as it did on a yearly bash at the local nightclub. His point was that a lot of parents think that a nightclub is a place they'd never ever want their kids to go to, let alone be seen as a reward. Some staff were outraged.

 

Back home my home town is unrecognisable. Big casino's are everywhere. Bars occupy every other shop, strip clubs are quite common and brazenly advertise in the local press. There are gun crimes. (sorry if this sounds common place to you, I'm a small town yokel these days). Where I live isn't different. Just behind. Slowly this stuff is spreading.

[localzuk]

The Paganism I know is a bit soft. I see it as a search for one's own spiritual roots. I explored it myself once. It mixes with New Age philosophy that I see as mostly superstition. Having said that I'd always like to keep an open mind that it has something valuable. I respect most primitive faiths. A singular entity is of no importance to me when assessing the validity of any faith system. Heck I can even dig atheism *winks at gwendes*

 

Don't you see yourself being a bit hypcritical there? ie. saying paganism is mostly superstition, and calling it a primitive faith?

Edited January 25, 2009 by localzuk
fix spelling

[SYNACK]

Religion is no longer our intellectual currency like it is theirs.

 

Huh? I have no idea what you mean with this statement please explain further.

[witch]

Can I focus on morals a bit..

 

A Christian teacher in the school I worked at was quite proactive with the kids. I used to walk homewith him occasionally and he'd tell off kids in the street for 'showing their midriff' for example. I'd get embarrassed and think this a bit of an intrusion into in this case, this 13yr old girls private life. But then I think it's me that's wrong. Don't we as adults have a responsibility to kids to let them know what we think of their actions?

 

No, absolutely not in this case. I would be horrified if a strange man came up to my daughter and started beratiing her for her clothes. I do not believe that an adult has the right to 'bully' individual children. By all means express your thoughts in other ways or even speak to the child's parents (equal to equal - although I am still not that happy).Adults do have a responsibility to children but we do not have the right to have a go at them in the street. How would you feel if the same man told off a child for something you thought was fine (perhaps for having pierced ears). Then what?

 

 

He single handedly took on the school about their reward scheme, focusing as it did on a yearly bash at the local nightclub. His point was that a lot of parents think that a nightclub is a place they'd never ever want their kids to go to, let alone be seen as a reward. Some staff were outraged.

Now this, I agree with. However, it would have been better if it hadn't have been 'single-handed'. Why not get together with the 'lot of parents' to show that this is not acceptable. He wasn't the only one unhappy with the situation.

I am still concerned that you seem to think that only Christians have the 'moral standards' you believe to be right. I know many people who would react in the same way as your 'Christian teacher'.

Edited January 25, 2009 by witch

[MkII]

Don't you see yourself being a bit hypcritical there? ie. saying paganism is mostly superstition, and calling it a primitive faith?

I wasn't referring to paganism being primitive. It isn't. Primitive = good in my view. I also referred to New Ageism as mainly superstition. I fully admit I don't look at other faith systems from the point of view of a follower. Christianity clearly distinguishes superstition. Plus I'm liable to make mistakes as much as anyone.

[MkII]

(Religion is no longer our intellectual currency like it is theirs.) Huh? I have no idea what you mean with this statement please explain further.

Apologies. India is a very religious country I hope you'd agree. Spiritual language is part of their popular culture. They have no problem considering complex spiritual issues, where us with our supposed superior knowledge can't make the starting gate.

[MkII]

No, absolutely not in this case. I would be horrified if a strange man came up to my daughter and started beratiing her for her clothes. I do not believe that an adult has the right to 'bully' individual children. By all means express your thoughts in other ways or even speak to the child's parents (equal to equal - although I am still not that happy).Adults do have a responsibility to children but we do not have the right to have a go at them in the street. How would you feel if the same man told off a child for something you thought was fine (perhaps for having pierced ears). Then what?

She wasn't a stranger, but a pupil of his. Most kids in town would be. You are part of society, and responsible members of society look out for each other's children. Our culture is developing in the direction where it seeks to reverse this. We're all apart from accountability and community. It's what we choose.

 

Adults will also say the wrong thing. The child has peers/ elders to talk it over with. In a small community the adults would talk anyway. Erosion of community has a lot to answer for. In my experience it's prevalent. Hopefully for you that isn't the case.

 

Now this, I agree with. However, it would have been better if it hadn't have been 'single-handed'. Why not get together with the 'lot of parents' to show that this is not acceptable. He wasn't the only one unhappy with the situation.

I am still concerned that you seem to think that only Christians have the 'moral standards' you believe to be right. I know many people who would react in the same way as your 'Christian teacher'.

Well I saw him tackle the Governing body. I think it immediately grew to include all parents in the decision making too.

I agree, anyone could have made the first stand. I would argue that Christ centredness helps a person do the right thing, which is good surely.

[witch]

She wasn't a stranger, but a pupil of his. Most kids in town would be. You are part of society, and responsible members of society look out for each other's children. Our culture is developing in the direction where it seeks to reverse this. We're all apart from accountability and community. It's what we choose.

.

 

You didn't answer my point though - what if it had been something you disagreed with? I still wouldn't be happy if a teacher berated my child outside school. I don't disagree that adults look out for others' children, but your example smacks of one person taking the moral law into their own hands.

 

 

I'm sure having a strong faith helps when tackling injustice or whatever - but it is hardly impossible to behave in that way without it, is it? I would dispute that those of us who have a strong moral sense (innate, see previous post) are just as able to tackle something like the nightclub issue.

I have a great respect for you and your beliefs but on the moral issue you seem to be taking the moral high ground and basically saying that if you are not a Christian you can't have 'real' morals and behave in a properly moral way. Which I find quite insulting.

 

You also say the Christianity clearly distinguishes superstition

So why did they place Christ's birth firmly at the same time as the pagan, and full of superstition, ceremony of the Winter Solstice? (and Mithras' birthday)

We could also discuss the 'hijacking' of pagan symbols (eg the cross) and other such things as well.

Please do not mix up true paganism with the New Age stuff that you see around. That has little or nothing to do with the real grass-roots () pagans.

[MkII]

You didn't answer my point though - what if it had been something you disagreed with? I still wouldn't be happy if a teacher berated my child outside school. I don't disagree that adults look out for others' children, but your example smacks of one person taking the moral law into their own hands.

I thought I did. I'm for community & relationships & so for adults advising children. Rather that than children thinking they know better.

 

I'm sure having a strong faith helps when tackling injustice or whatever - but it is hardly impossible to behave in that way without it, is it? I would dispute that those of us who have a strong moral sense (innate, see previous post) are just as able to tackle something like the nightclub issue.

What motivates though? Can it be pure love or is it something else? Which would you rather be motivated by?

 

I have a great respect for you and your beliefs but on the moral issue you seem to be taking the moral high ground and basically saying that if you are not a Christian you can't have 'real' morals and behave in a properly moral way. Which I find quite insulting.

It's not me or any person that's better, it's the motive. I'm sure you can appreciate a good motive.

 

You also say the Christianity clearly distinguishes superstition

So why did they place Christ's birth firmly at the same time as the pagan, and full of superstition, ceremony of the Winter Solstice? (and Mithras' birthday)

We could also discuss the 'hijacking' of pagan symbols (eg the cross) and other such things as well.

Please do not mix up true paganism with the New Age stuff that you see around. That has little or nothing to do with the real grass-roots () pagans.

I think here we're roaming outside the aspiration that is Christianity and into the corrupting power of people again. I have the utmost respect for pre Christian faiths.

[witch]

So what do you think motivates people who are not Christians, to do something that you see as morally right?

You are doing it again - implying, in fact nearly saying, that non-Christians cannot have a strong moral sense, they must be motivated by something that is perhaps not good.

 

Every day, there are examples of heroic and wonderful behaviour - people standing up for what they believe in - which may not be Christian per se- but IS that there is a moral code by which we *should* all live and that we all need to be vigilant.

 

Do you REALLY believe that my motive cannot be pure love just because I am not a Christian? Or that it *must* be something bad or impure?

 

I really hope not, because if you are then you are in danger of becoming one of those hard-shelled religious - I hesitate to say - fanatics - who do not accept that there is good in others, even if they are not following your faith?

[MkII]

I'm sorry I don't think I made myself clear. I wasn't trying to say that non Christians couldn't have pure motives, that would be crazy. A Christian act doesn't require a Christian (, if you want to define 'good' in that way). Also, good deeds may result accidentally, from any source.

 

An act of pure love doesn't require a pure lover. Your arch nemesis may commit an act of utmost pure love in your direction, better than anything your personal pure lover has done. Which is best? Most people have the opposite problem with that. Here they are, faithful all their lives, and some low life scum gets the crown with one little gesture.

 

Do you think non religion is as aspirational as you think is important? I see faiths striving for it, but I don't see any inherent in this societies makeup. Freedom of the individual would generally seem to foster selfishness and an uncaring attitude.

[fafster]

Although from Biblical texts it's apparent that early Judaic morals were quite primitive,

 

You mean the ones stating that homosexuality, eating shellfish and putting up christmas trees are sins, but slavery's ok? Very avant-garde

 

As as for not having much time for pagans - can you tell me why? Is it because we don't worship one God? If that is the case then you don't have much time for Hindus presumably?

 

Although it seems that Hindus worship multiple gods (shiva, brahma, ganesha etc.), they're actually the many faces of the same god, or divine energy if you will.

[witch]

Do you think non religion is as aspirational as you think is important? I see faiths striving for it, but I don't see any inherent in this societies makeup. Freedom of the individual would generally seem to foster selfishness and an uncaring attitude.

 

 

So although your God apparently gave us free will, you think it is a bad thing for individuals to have freedom?

[MkII]

So although your God apparently gave us free will, you think it is a bad thing for individuals to have freedom?

 

LOL

 

A Child unguided has freedom. A Child nurtured by the tender loving care of it's parents knows it's boundaries and is more free.

[witch]

I am still confused: are you saying that only a Christian can have/or instil, the proper boundaries in others or children?

I think if you met my children you would agree that they know exactly where their boundaries are - they are polite, helpful, kind and caring and they know the difference between right and wrong. I know many others like this -it is not just mine.

And they have been brought up by a pagan and an atheist

[MkII]

I am still confused: are you saying that only a Christian can have/or instil, the proper boundaries in others or children?

I think if you met my children you would agree that they know exactly where their boundaries are - they are polite, helpful, kind and caring and they know the difference between right and wrong. I know many others like this -it is not just mine.

And they have been brought up by a pagan and an atheist

 

No I'm not witch. I'm saying the Christian principles in this case seem to be the same as your own. Maybe that's insulting to you but that's not how I intend the comment.

Would you agree that knowing your boundaries = more freedom?

[fafster]

Would you agree that knowing your boundaries = more freedom?

 

Not really, it's a bit of an oxymoron. I do agree however that a child who knows and accepts their boundaries are going to be better suited to and will be a benefit for society as a whole.

[witch]

No I'm not witch. I'm saying the Christian principles in this case seem to be the same as your own. Maybe that's insulting to you but that's not how I intend the comment.

Would you agree that knowing your boundaries = more freedom?

 

 

I'm not insulted exactly, its just that it comes over to me that you almost can't believe that anyone who isn't a Christian could possibly have good morals and lead a morally exemplary life. It's THAT that I find difficult to take (see moral high ground). I don't dispute for one minute that living by Christian ideals and principles is a good way to live, just that there are people who live similarly without the religious background.

Yes, boundaries do make for a happier society, but I am not sure about being freer- take it to its limit and you have all sorts of restrictions and things that begin to smell of a police state:(

[fafster]

I don't dispute for one minute that living by Christian ideals and principles is a good way to live, just that there are people who live similarly without the religious background.

 

I'm of the opinion that everyone has an internal compass, which is basically the "Would I be happy if what I'm doing was done to me?" argument. The Christian commandments basically package it up into nice little segments.

 

Let's be fair, if we didn't have the natural capacity for empathy, then we wouldn't be able to form the society that you see today. IMO of course.

[MkII]

(Rules set you free) Not really, it's a bit of an oxymoron. I do agree however that a child who knows and accepts their boundaries are going to be better suited to and will be a benefit for society as a whole.

TBH this is a personal idea I've had for ages. I've thought of good substantiating evidence but can't think of it right now . Certainly in wider society, everyone playing nice facilitates all our freedoms. The more I trust my immediate community the more freedom I'll give my kids.

 

I do think there's personal benefit too. If I know my boundaries I'm free to act like I trust the foundations. Take RD's point, I think, that he thinks we shouldn't need certainties, but be happy that everything is changeable and enjoy the intellectual task of 'not knowing'. "not knowing" limits my actions through uncertainty.

 

gwendes has said he learn't his opinions from studying. Personally I don't see the difference between being informed in that way and being informed of Christian beliefs. In a vacuum, with no outside influence, what we'd all come up with would be very similar. From gwendes' point of view, any non (physical) factual idea is worthless. Isn't that a learnt idea though? RD's book The God Delusion is a thorough exploration of ignorance of a subject. Very well written and valid as such, but ignorance all the same.