Atheism will eat itself

[fafster]

...and enjoy the intellectual task of 'not knowing'.

 

I'm not sure that I understand. Do you mean you'd prefer to remain ignorant of a subject, or enjoy the discovery attained through knowledge?

[MkII]

The latter.

 

If you accept, for example, the biblical guidelines on morals, you have pretty tight guide there, so no need for uncertainty. It's a subject that seems to have reached conclusion. Or conculsion on the guidelines. All of the bible is the same, on the subject matter it covers, imho. Anything that is fundamentally challenged, like the creation of the universe, isn't anywhere near what the bible addresses.

[gwendes]

I've been sick Sympathy please.

 

Want to address a few points in this thread.

 

Children sometimes do know best. Sometimes children are exactly the people to make a difference. I cite the invention of the teenager in the 1960s. Good or bad it is freedom based on rebellion and it has given us all great things.

 

There is no such thing as 'social errosion' - the same problems have always existed in one form or another. Society isn't collapsing in around us because people now are less interested in a greater cause or higher power.

 

One of my favourite quotes:

 

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers. " - Socrates (469-399 BC)

 

Why does everyone think that children are bad and need to be corrected?

 

Why is there a general assumption that morals only exist as a force that needs to be drummed into children?

[MkII]

Welcome back gwendes - sorry to hear you've been ill!

 

Agree with you to some degree on the social erosion line, however there are always peaks and troughs. If you watched Around the world in 80 Faiths last week you would have seen Peter Owen Jones finding the US to be mega religious but spiritually baron. His highlight, apart from a Navaho Sweat (a stunningly spiritual practice), was a visit to the Burning Man festival in Navada. Supposedly secular/ non religious people finding an actual spiritual encounter. So lack of religion does not necessarily equal lack of spirituality. We could be on a journey to purer spirituality if we were heading towards atheism, and not the opposite.

 

You and I as mere blokes really have no concept of what children need. My kids are angels LOL - and it's no credit to me I can tell you! Bad = anti social, and they've been guided, from day 1, into that. We have friends who believe, something akin to you I think, that their child shouldn't be corrected from an early age. Other people, when looking after that child, have done hard correcting for them, but the chi9ld was a nightmare - he'd destroy your house/ posessions if you didn't keep everything out of his way, is left to wander on his own at school because no one can get him to take part. Our kids had very gentle correction.. they'd look at you when going to do something, to question if it was right or wrong, and you'd say 'Noooo' in that funny way; then maybe sometimes they'd push the boundary and go for it anyway, so we'd pick them up and move them away. It's a gentle game you play, an example of many, that teaches children where the boundaries lie. Schools have massive problems when children aren't taught the basics of social behaviour at school, and teachers then get the job when essentially, it's far too late.

 

I'm glad you raised that because it niggled me when witch was speaking about morals in relation to children, which seems to be where everyone has heightened interest: when it comes to raising your own children.

[gwendes]

I just think that it needs to be noted that children are not bad by default. Good and bad are both the product of learned and innate behaviours.

 

For example a child does not need to be thrown into Sunday school to scare them away from behaving badly - they don't have any preference for bad behaviour. Children simply respond to their environment, sometimes in a very unpredicatable manner - people are very much more complicated than we sometimes think!

 

Anti-social is not neccessarily bad although it's not usually an advantage. I know very anti-social children and think that it will make their lives more difficult but I am not the person to judge what they've deemed important. Society is formed of a rich mix of people and there isn't a one-size-fits-all behaviour or morality (however nice the idea)

[MkII]

The 'bad' you refer to is an aim to be perfect. Of course children don't have this, like you say, they are free to the influence of learned and innate behaviour.

 

I missed a point.. Children are happiest when they know their boundaries. They are aware of what pleases their carers, whereas those that have no sense of that and are always attracting correction.

 

Sunday school never has existed to teach bad children to be good. It shows what's right and wrong. It offers direction. You seem to be saying that guidance has no merit. This is the function of parenting, so I don't understand at all.

 

Interesting how that ties with non religion and the desire of the non religious for no guidance. It shows what a desperate & lost viewpoint that is.

[gwendes]

I missed a point.. Children are happiest when they know their boundaries. They are aware of what pleases their carers, whereas those that have no sense of that and are always attracting correction.

 

I think it depends on the child. Even siblings can respond very differently to indentical parenting. I had the same parents as my brother and sister and we all wanted different levels of freedom and boundaries. It's a good general rule but you still need to be flexible with what it is the parents want - these are often just the result of pressures on them.

 

Sunday school never has existed to teach bad children to be good. It shows what's right and wrong. It offers direction. You seem to be saying that guidance has no merit. This is the function of parenting, so I don't understand at all.

 

Here you highlight my point. Without going to far in using the example of Sunday school, it offers an absolute set of rules - this is the problem. Guidance needs to be in the form of 'whole world' analysis. Simply obeying authority figures, parents, church, school is not a very healthy thing to do. Children need to understand and be satisfied with the reasons why an action is right or wrong.

 

Interesting how that ties with non religion and the desire of the non religious for no guidance. It shows what a desperate & lost viewpoint that is.

 

You seem to misunderstand. I'm not saying children should be dumped into the world, straight from the womb, and told to figure everything out. I'm saying that I will tell my children to look at what I believe and what other people believe and make theior own judgements. There is no reason to 'guide' towards my preferred way of thinking I just personally happen to think that it's the best (but I would say that wouldn't I?)

 

No guidance is ridiculous. In the West freedom offers plenty of boundaries without absolutes (wherever they're from).

 

For example, your commandments:

 

I don't think there's a need to 'guide' to 'Thou shalt not kill' and I think as much as it's true that it's generally a good idea to respect your parents it's a rule that can't stand alone - respect must be earnt and to attempt to force when it isn't deserved is like a broken pencil.

[MkII]

Parents aren't machines either. Even if you try to be consistent.

 

You misunderstand Sunday School if you think everything taught is absolutes. Sunday School is only valid when it relates directly to the real world. Anything in isolation is valid only for that isolation. To teach reasoning and doubt are the most important things in anyone's education I'd suggest.

 

I'm saying that I will tell my children to look at what I believe and what other people believe and make theior own judgements. There is no reason to 'guide' towards my preferred way of thinking I just personally happen to think that it's the best (but I would say that wouldn't I?)

Precisely. You don't recognise your own certainties. I do. I'm not frightened of guiding my children when reasoning is clear to me. I don't 'force' anything on them, I guide. They make their own choices on that guidance.

 

No one needs to guide on the ten commandments. The grey areas around the periphery are the interesting bits. No absolutes there. Just questions and some answers.

[gwendes]

Precisely. You don't recognise your own certainties. I do.

 

I recognise my own certainties. I recognise that they are also potentially non-certainties and that they are mine and the only reason to pass them on is a personal preference I have developed for them - some of the reasons I have done this are due to nature and some to nurture.

 

Some are worthwhile and some are not - I'm not realy going to be the best barometer since I have a bias for my particular views.

 

Not that it really matters unless we're going to disagree about things that affect all of society. I just think that it's very healthy to always have the question - you never know which parents or authorities you might need children up to rebel against...

[MkII]

You must draw the line somewhere though gwendes. There must be a point where you have firm beliefs. We've mentioned the obvious ones, but you can't be including those I think?? Questionable beliefs have to stay that, I'm not endorsing the use of questionable beliefs as moral/ whatever guidance. But the same as you, I think, that questioning and doubt are important values too.

[fafster]

Questionable beliefs have to stay that, I'm not endorsing the use of questionable beliefs as moral/ whatever guidance.

 

Hang on a second, you said earlier that as a christian you're meant to question your beliefs. By that same measure, you're now saying that those very same beliefs shouldn't be used as a moral compass. So if you don't have firm belief in the bible, and refuse to endorse its moralities, just what kind of christian are you?

[gwendes]

You must draw the line somewhere though gwendes. There must be a point where you have firm beliefs. We've mentioned the obvious ones, but you can't be including those I think?? Questionable beliefs have to stay that, I'm not endorsing the use of questionable beliefs as moral/ whatever guidance. But the same as you, I think, that questioning and doubt are important values too.

 

Why would I do that? Every one of my beliefs is just that - a belief. I live my life on the assumption that I am right about my beliefs but every one of them is equally open to being shown to be false.

 

It's the only way to fairly deal with any given question- making a judgement based on ever-changing knowledge and experience.

 

Absolutes are pointless.

 

What, for example, were you thinking I might firmly hold to be true? Remember, I don't believe in an ultimate good or bad.

[gwendes]

Hang on a second, you said earlier that as a christian you're meant to question your beliefs. By that same measure, you're now saying that those very same beliefs shouldn't be used as a moral compass. So if you don't have firm belief in the bible, and refuse to endorse its moralities, just what kind of christian are you?

 

I believe this is ok if you're the sort of Christian that accepts that the Bible must be interpreted. Right?

[ICT_GUY]

I got a funny look from the Woman at the swimming pool the other day, under the Councils over zealous data gathering questions there was one on religion, she didn't get the whole church of the flying spaghetti monster thing.

 

[gwendes]

I got a funny look from the Woman at the swimming pool the other day, under the Councils over zealous data gathering questions there was one on religion, she didn't get the whole church of the flying spaghetti monster thing.

 

 

LMFAO! Nice one - I'd have done the same...

[fafster]

Personally I'd have gone down the whole satan worship route.

[ICT_GUY]

Personally I'd have gone down the whole satan worship route.

 

But I have been touched by his noodley appendage.

[gwendes]

Personally I'd have gone down the whole satan worship route.

 

 

People have heard of that - so boring!

[MkII]

@ fafster : touche

 

Why would I do that? Every one of my beliefs is just that - a belief. I live my life on the assumption that I am right about my beliefs but every one of them is equally open to being shown to be false.

 

It's the only way to fairly deal with any given question- making a judgement based on ever-changing knowledge and experience.

 

Absolutes are pointless.

 

What, for example, were you thinking I might firmly hold to be true? Remember, I don't believe in an ultimate good or bad.

& here we enter into pointless semantics.

 

So you have no stance that anything that may be right or wrong at all? Murder, rape, pedophilia etc etc, are all acceptable as you can't ever say you ever would hold a firm opinion on them?

 

You trash wisdom and experience of your elders for example. To you there is no reason at all to respect anyone or anything, as it's all in flux. Everything you do, everything you say, at any moment in time is entirely without foundation. You can have no foundation because that would contradict your logic.

 

You don't agree with society and it's rules. You want there to be no rules.

 

I think you're doing a great job of trashing non belief. I think you should admit to everyone that you're a raging Christian now gwendes

[gwendes]

 

So you have no stance that anything that may be right or wrong at all? Murder, rape, pedophilia etc etc, are all acceptable as you can't ever say you ever would hold a firm opinion on them?

 

No. I've come to conclusions that I live my life by. I believe that there are things that can be described as good and bad. I don't accept absolutes.

 

Murder is not always 100% wrong for example - I see greys.

 

You trash wisdom and experience of your elders for example.

 

I don't see a reason for tradition or 'wisdom' to be held as higher than other beliefs - If I subject it to my personal barometer of morality then I might find any belief to be one that I agree with or one that I don't.

 

It all depends where and when you live(d).

 

To you there is no reason at all to respect anyone or anything, as it's all in flux. Everything you do, everything you say, at any moment in time is entirely without foundation. You can have no foundation because that would contradict your logic.

 

I don't have absolutes but I don't live my life without reasons to respect others! Everything is open to the question but I don't live my life on the assumption that nobody else exists!

 

I think there's a single basic rule (for the sane) - Do to others as you would have them do to you. Early writers noticed this was a positive human trait and noted it down in one of the religious texts - it actually became quite popular!

You don't agree with society and it's rules. You want there to be no rules.

 

I think you're doing a great job of trashing non belief. I think you should admit to everyone that you're a raging Christian now gwendes

 

You think that not having a firm set of unchanging rules makes people bad? I think it means that they are able to be flexible and therefore as good as it is possible to be.

[MkII]

No. I've come to conclusions that I live my life by. I believe that there are things that can be described as good and bad. I don't accept absolutes.

No you don't hold firm opinion on anything? That's what I'm saying... with your belief system that's exactly the right conclusion, and an extremely damaging one.

You're confusing this talking about absolutes. That's a redundant argument.

 

I don't see a reason for tradition or 'wisdom' to be held as higher than other beliefs - If I subject it to my personal barometer of morality then I might find any belief to be one that I agree with or one that I don't.

I like the way you sneaked in 'tradition' there. You don't accept wisdom so you try to belittle it by association with out of date ritual. Nice.

 

Your barometer is bent - it can't measure because it accepts no constants.

 

I don't have absolutes but I don't live my life without reasons to respect others! Everything is open to the question but I don't live my life on the assumption that nobody else exists!

Everything is also open to question to me, but I also accept some probabilities as true unless evidence arises to the contrary. From this I can derive certainties of varying strength. What you seem to be saying is that you can't 'trust' in anything anywhere near certainty.

 

I think there's a single basic rule (for the sane) - Do to others as you would have them do to you. Early writers noticed this was a positive human trait and noted it down in one of the religious texts - it actually became quite popular!

So you're justifying an absolutist statement?

 

You think that not having a firm set of unchanging rules makes people bad? I think it means that they are able to be flexible and therefore as good as it is possible to be.

Again you bring up negative absolutes to justify your correctness. When did I ever say that?

 

So you're saying people who can't know what's right and wrong in the world are more capable of 'goodness'? How is that ever logical or possible?

[gwendes]

No you don't hold firm opinion on anything? That's what I'm saying... with your belief system that's exactly the right conclusion, and an extremely damaging one.

You're confusing this talking about absolutes. That's a redundant argument.

 

I suppose it comes down to the fact that I don't think that we now live in an enlightened age where we have come up with timeless rules that will determine the behaviour of mankind forever. We need to look at why we think things are right and wrong and not just accept them because that's the way things have always been. I didn't use the word 'tradition' in a negative way - tradition is sometimes good but it shouldn't be automatically accepted as good or right - we just need to look at other cultures and it's clear that one of us is wrong (if there is an ultimate good or bad).

 

I like the way you sneaked in 'tradition' there. You don't accept wisdom so you try to belittle it by association with out of date ritual. Nice.

 

Your barometer is bent - it can't measure because it accepts no constants.

 

I do think there's a great deal of worth in 'wisdom' and I also think it's very useful to study historical beliefs and compare and contrast.

 

I think that there are biological tendancies - desire to be a member of a tribe or group for example but I think that many things that are 'good' and 'bad' are decided by those groups. I think that murder can be justified in certain circumstances today. In the past murder has been encouraged by many cultures - human sacrifice was very important - it is only wrong by the standards we happen to have set today in this part of the world.

 

 

Everything is also open to question to me, but I also accept some probabilities as true unless evidence arises to the contrary. From this I can derive certainties of varying strength. What you seem to be saying is that you can't 'trust' in anything anywhere near certainty.

 

I'm just saying that there is no ultimate certainty to be measuring against - it all depends on so many things - that doesn't mean I live my life against the grain of the society I live in - I just attempt to assess situations based on evidence over what others have decided.

 

So you're justifying an absolutist statement?

 

It's something I think is important. I don't think it's a rule that we've been given or plucked from the universe - I like to be treated well and it seems logical to treat others well in anticipation or response.

 

So you're saying people who can't know what's right and wrong in the world are more capable of 'goodness'? How is that ever logical or possible?

 

Not that they don't know right and wrong. We all know right and wrong (hopefully). Our individual right and wrong is based on our biology and experiences, so, had we been raised in a culture that did things that we don't agree with in our culture we would believe these things to be right.

 

Somebody that was raised in a culture we would consider to have 'bad' morals that was prepared to question and doubt the tradition and 'wisdom' would be equipped to move that society forward - anarchy can swing both ways.

 

We must accept Abortion-related violence if we want African-American Civil Rights Movement - see how right and wrong are subjective?

Edited February 6, 2009 by gwendes

[MkII]

I'm just saying that there is no ultimate certainty to be measuring against - it all depends on so many things - that doesn't mean I live my life against the grain of the society I live in - I just attempt to assess situations based on evidence over what others have decided.

Only there ARE certainties, and you agree with them. You're re-inventing the wheel. Nearly all of what you've said in this post is straight Christianity. All of us are on a journey of discovery. Throwing away the compass may or may not be a better road, but it leads to the same destination.

 

It's something I think is important. I don't think it's a rule that we've been given or plucked from the universe - I like to be treated well and it seems logical to treat others well in anticipation or response.

Funny, Jesus agrees with you

 

Not that they don't know right and wrong. We all know right and wrong (hopefully). Our individual right and wrong is based on our biology and experiences, so, had we been raised in a culture that did things that we don't agree with in our culture we would believe these things to be right.

You're talking about cultural moral standards and not global moral standards.

[gwendes]

Funny, Jesus agrees with you

 

Hey, he's only human!

 

 

(I also think he might suggest that God (also himself) determined the rules...)

 

 

You're talking about cultural moral standards and not global moral standards.

 

Isn't the difference defined simply by everyone agreeing? I don't know that there are too many examples... Certainly not if you look at history as well as geography...

Edited February 9, 2009 by gwendes

[MkII]

Hey, he's only human!

 

(I also think he might suggest that God (also himself) determined the rules...)

 

The rules of physics/ the makeup of this existence - simple spiritual language that you deliberately bastardise.

 

Society's laws determine what works for that society. Moral rules are something different that underlie secular law.