Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: SusanDoris on May 05, 2018, 06:08:35 PM
-
SteveH in the Faith Sharing area, in the topic on why people decide which religion is best for them said this:
I would have thought that that was crystal clear: Britain has been a Christian country for well over 1,000 years, and has a thoroughly Christian culture, even if the proportion of personally-committed believers is at an all-time low.
Bearing in mind the various burnings, hangings, etc etc carried out in the name of Christianity during the last nearly 2,000 years, I don't think people should be proud of their historical /Christianity, or hold it up as any kind of example for good!! That was the main reason why I followed the post with, 'Explain.' Perhaps SteveH might like to have a go at offering some general, if not particular, words or two on this?
-
SteveH in the Faith Sharing area, in the topic on why people decide which religion is best for them said this:
Bearing in mind the various burnings, hangings, etc etc carried out in the name of Christianity during the last nearly 2,000 years, I don't think people should be proud of their historical /Christianity,
What about the millions killed by Stalin?
-
SteveH in the Faith Sharing area, in the topic on why people decide which religion is best for them said this:
Bearing in mind the various burnings, hangings, etc etc carried out in the name of Christianity during the last nearly 2,000 years, I don't think people should be proud of their historical /Christianity, or hold it up as any kind of example for good!! That was the main reason why I followed the post with, 'Explain.' Perhaps SteveH might like to have a go at offering some general, if not particular, words or two on this?
I’m missing where he says it’s something we should all be proud of.
-
What about the millions killed by Stalin?
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Stalin did not live in Britain!!
-
I’m missing where he says it’s something we should all be proud of.
True those words were not actually used, but I thought perhaps the implication was there and that it would be interesting to hear his/her views expanded, rather than leaving the phrase as if the meaning was clear.
-
SteveH in the Faith Sharing area, in the topic on why people decide which religion is best for them said this:
Bearing in mind the various burnings, hangings, etc etc carried out in the name of Christianity during the last nearly 2,000 years, I don't think people should be proud of their historical /Christianity, or hold it up as any kind of example for good!! That was the main reason why I followed the post with, 'Explain.' Perhaps SteveH might like to have a go at offering some general, if not particular, words or two on this?
Did I say that our Christian heritage was unalloyedly good, or deny the persecution of heretics and others? I don't think so.
-
No you didn't say that Christianity was perfect Steven, or rather those who adhered to it, you just said it was 'there', which it was in this country.
No religion or anyone who practices a religion are perfect, that would be impossible.
-
In my #4 I agreed that I did not say you, SteveH, said that Christianity was good. My first post in the other thread was in response to your #9 two words, 'Historically Christian' and I thought that needed an explanation, as the two-word phrase is far too sweeping a statement and has a touch of arrogance about it. It must also include the burnings, hangings, etc that I have mentioned.
Perhaps we should say, 'historically humans being what they have evolved to be and using their imagined God/s to authorise - and of course to sanctify - their actions'.
-
In my #4 I agreed that I did not say you, SteveH, said that Christianity was good. My first post in the other thread was in response to your #9 two words, 'Historically Christian' and I thought that needed an explanation, as the two-word phrase is far too sweeping a statement and has a touch of arrogance about it. It must also include the burnings, hangings, etc that I have mentioned.
Perhaps we should say, 'historically humans being what they have evolved to be and using their imagined God/s to authorise - and of course to sanctify - their actions'.
Historically Christian sounds fine to me. Accurate without any arrogance.
-
In my #4 I agreed that I did not say you, SteveH, said that Christianity was good. My first post in the other thread was in response to your #9 two words, 'Historically Christian' and I thought that needed an explanation, as the two-word phrase is far too sweeping a statement and has a touch of arrogance about it. It must also include the burnings, hangings, etc that I have mentioned.
Perhaps we should say, 'historically humans being what they have evolved to be and using their imagined God/s to authorise - and of course to sanctify - their actions'.
You give the impression of being a rather embittered atheist who is trying to pick a fight.
-
Historically Christian sounds fine to me. Accurate without any arrogance.
Well there’s a great big chunk of prehistory that wasn’t Christian, and for a lot of the time what passed for Christianity was a form of folk religion. But I don’t see that it’s arrogant to say we’re historically Christian.
-
You give the impression of being a rather embittered atheist who is trying to pick a fight.
That is so completely, utterly wrong!!! I wish I could still link you to my web site, but I was deleted into irretrievable cyber space by my ISP last year.
-
That is so completely, utterly wrong!!! I wish I could still link you to my web site, but I was deleted into irretrievable cyber space by my ISP last year.
He did say you give that impression Susan. I've thought the same, you have an unpleasant and sneering way of speaking - accuse people of being 'smug' when they're not. I've noticed it ever since I joined the forum early last year & thought it best not to engage with you on religious topics.
-
He did say you give that impression Susan. I've thought the same, you have an unpleasant and sneering way of speaking - accuse people of being 'smug' when they're not. I've noticed it ever since I joined the forum early last year & thought it best not to engage with you on religious topics.
Well, I cannot prevent you adding in your mind a sneering or similar tone to the words I write. I challenge, yes, but assume that a discussion board needs that, but I recommend listening to every word of every post via the voice of Snthetic Dave and then you would hear only the content and not apply a pejorative tone to it! You can believe it or not as you choose but I think one of the last adjectives which would occur to those who know me - my tap group for a start :) - is 'sneering'. ah, well!
-
He did say you give that impression Susan. I've thought the same, you have an unpleasant and sneering way of speaking - accuse people of being 'smug' when they're not. I've noticed it ever since I joined the forum early last year & thought it best not to engage with you on religious topics.
I don’t always agree with Susan but I don't recognise this description of her.
-
Well, I cannot prevent you adding in your mind a sneering or similar tone to the words I write. I challenge, yes, but assume that a discussion board needs that, but I recommend listening to every word of every post via the voice of Snthetic Dave and then you would hear only the content and not apply a pejorative tone to it! You can believe it or not as you choose but I think one of the last adjectives which would occur to those who know me - my tap group for a start :) - is 'sneering'. ah, well!
I wonder if Steve H and Robbie even realise that you are blind and 'hear' not 'read' their posts?
-
I wonder if Steve H and Robbie even realise that you are blind and 'hear' not 'read' their posts?
What difference would that make to how they perceive SD's posts read to them?
-
I wonder if Steve H and Robbie even realise that you are blind and 'hear' not 'read' their posts?
Yes, I do know that. What of it?
-
Christianity has had a lot to be ashamed of over the centuries. :o Nowadays there appears to be more moderate Christians here in the UK, than ones with extreme views. However, the extremists can still do a lot of harm even is their abusive tactics are more likely to be of the emotional kind rather than the physical.
-
Agreed but why does any religion have extremist views?
Why is something not SO clear it CAN'T be mistranslated?
Nick
-
Agreed but why does any religion have extremist views?
Why is something not SO clear it CAN'T be mistranslated?
Nick
Human nature!! Since all religious ideas came from human imagination in the first place and have been re-thought a million times since, we'll just have to wait until a majority of people worldwide realise this is so . :)
A phrase like 'historically Christian' is riddled with questions, misunderstandings, falsehoods, misinterpretations of texts written by people who thought they were expounding the word of their particular God/god/s, and then assuming power and leadership roles. It doesn't matter how well-intentioned they were, we can see now with the benefit of science and the scientific method plus the evidence of technology that their beliefs and assumptions were not objective truths.
During my lifetime I have seen a huge change from a time when to question someone's religious beliefs or a person's position in society because of his(not hers of course) titlawas taboo to a time, now, when it is openly and vigorously challenged and shown to be totally lacking in proper evidence. The beliefs themselves are being ridiculed where appropriate and this is being done whilst most ordinary, thoughtful people maintain an understanding of the people concerned and that includes respect for them as human beings because, well, we can see how easy it would be for us, for me at anyrate, to be in that position because of the cultures and societies we are in.
I am grateful (to natural Nature!) for this knowledge and will die with the confidence that this process will continue, albeit with fits and starts because of all us humans involved.
-
I don't see that the phrase 'Historically Christian' implies anything more than that for the majority of recent history Christianity has been the most common religion in Britian. I don't see it as riddled with questions etc
-
I don't see that the phrase 'Historically Christian' implies anything more than that for the majority of recent history Christianity has been the most common religion in Britian. I don't see it as riddled with questions etc
That is of course true in general conversation, but this is, after all, a forum for discussion... ...!
-
I think that it may be appropriate to ask at this point "what is the purpose of religion?"
My own view is that it is a system of social control - different from systems which involve physical methods such as violence or the threat of physical restraint - which uses the suggestion of revealed knowledge to influence behaviour. A shaman, or priest, or imam or witchdoctor ... or whatever ... has "knowledge" not possessed by ordinary people and this is used as a source of power. Allied to this is a general lack of understanding of the physical world (lightning is a weapon used by the gods or whatever) and a promise of continued existence following death.
Brutality and violence is accepted because it is considered necessary for the "truth" to be accepted by everyone and the violent suppression and subjugation of alternative ideologies is essential to ensure that "truth" is not corrupted. It has been a hallmark of Christianity over many centuries and is seen at present in factions of Islam.
Religion is the practice of telling minimally plausible fairy tales to a frightened community in order to ensure compliance.
-
I think that it may be appropriate to ask at this point "what is the purpose of religion?"
My own view is that it is a system of social control - different from systems which involve physical methods such as violence or the threat of physical restraint - which uses the suggestion of revealed knowledge to influence behaviour. A shaman, or priest, or imam or witchdoctor ... or whatever ... has "knowledge" not possessed by ordinary people and this is used as a source of power. Allied to this is a general lack of understanding of the physical world (lightning is a weapon used by the gods or whatever) and a promise of continued existence following death.
Brutality and violence is accepted because it is considered necessary for the "truth" to be accepted by everyone and the violent suppression and subjugation of alternative ideologies is essential to ensure that "truth" is not corrupted. It has been a hallmark of Christianity over many centuries and is seen at present in factions of Islam.
Religion is the practice of telling minimally plausible fairy tales to a frightened community in order to ensure compliance.
That sums up my experience of it.
-
No you didn't say that Christianity was perfect Steven, or rather those who adhered to it, you just said it was 'there', which it was in this country.
No religion or anyone who practices a religion are perfect, that would be impossible.
Neither would anything that's, so obviously, man made be perfect either.
Regards ippy
-
I think that it may be appropriate to ask at this point "what is the purpose of religion?"
I think that is much harder to answer nowadays than ever before. When I was young, I don’t think the question would have arisen amongst the general public. It might have come up insuch things as Philosophy at University, but I doubt that there would have been many atheist voices speaking up strongly! It seems reasonable to me to suppose that, when the branch of an ancient ape ancestor evolved, via random mutations and natural selection, to be able to communicate thoughts in language, then that species, aware that they could think, would presume that other aspects of nature could also think and act. Perhaps the first purpose of thoughts and actions which led to religions was to appease the apparent anger of, for example, mountains, rivers and seas. It would have then been an easy, probably inevitable, step for one or some with leadership qualities (and these could be for good or bad, since there had been leaders of mammal groups for millions of years already – a vital survival trait)to take that role in those early human groups.My own view is that it is a system of social control - different from systems which involve physical methods such as violence or the threat of physical restraint - which uses the suggestion of revealed knowledge to influence behaviour.
This, with all its inherent problems, probably was also a strong survival trait even into comparatively recent centuries!A shaman, or priest, or imam or witchdoctor ... or whatever ... has "knowledge" not possessed by ordinary people and this is used as a source of power.
Yes, and in the past they did not have people – well, there must have been some, but nowhere near enough – who would challenge by saying that their claims of such powers were based on wishful thinking!
Allied to this is a general lack of understanding of the physical world (lightning is a weapon used by the gods or whatever) and a promise of continued existence following death.
Agreed.
Brutality and violence is accepted because it is considered necessary for the "truth" to be accepted by everyone and the violent suppression and subjugation of alternative ideologies is essential to ensure that "truth" is not corrupted. It has been a hallmark of Christianity over many centuries and is seen at present in factions of Islam.
This is, unfortunately, all too true. However, there certainly seems to be a far, far greater awareness this century that this is no longer acceptable. With all its spread of rubbish noted, the internet is making positive messages of talk not war,
heard more clearly. The claims made by religious leaders of all kinds are no longer accepted without question. Religion is the practice of telling minimally plausible fairy tales to a frightened community in order to ensure compliance.
Thank goodness this is not working anywhere near as well as it did in the past!
-
I’ve been thinking about this thread and why Susan read so much more into Steve’s words than are actually there. Then it occurred to me that ‘historic’ is often used to mean ‘a great achievement’ - ‘historic victory’ for example. I wonder if Susan has attached that kind of meaning to what was simply a statement of fact, if open to question somewhat on the paganism front.
-
I’ve been thinking about this thread and why Susan read so much more into Steve’s words than are actually there. Then it occurred to me that ‘historic’ is often used to mean ‘a great achievement’ - ‘historic victory’ for example. I wonder if Susan has attached that kind of meaning to what was simply a statement of fact, if open to question somewhat on the paganism front.
No, I didn't read anything into SteveH's comment - I just thought the subject might be worth some discussion. I like discussion for discussion's sake and do not mind if there is no *winner or loser*; but if interesting opinions have been aired and discussed, then that is satisfying I think.
-
What difference would that make to how they perceive SD's posts read to them?
Because a machine does not have the ability to express things like emotion etc. It gives the words not thei subtlty of vocal expression.
-
Yes, I do know that. What of it?
See #29
-
That sums up my experience of it.
Of organised religion - mine too.
-
Perhaps a better term would be 'Christian Heritage', and that the UK has such a heritage is undeniable. However, as Rhi noted earlier, Christianity isn't a steady state and has changed markedly since early Anglo Saxon times, as has its social and political role, where at one time theology, politics and power were closely entwined to the extent that Christianity had substantial authority that went beyond mere influence.
Although there are some residual hangovers of this today: mainly in the 'established' status of the C of E and the peculiar obsession some sections of the media have in telling us all what various clerics think and say, along with ensuring a select few of them get a free pass into political governance via the H of L. Times have changed though, and the authority and influence of organised Christianity has waned to the point that life can be lived without any reference to Christianity (aside of course from annoyance at the unearned privilege of the C of E in the UK and the assumption that what various clerics think is of any relevance or interest to anyone who is not a member of their various sects).
I was listening to an interview with a senior cleric (can't remember the details since it was a while ago) who pointed out that the biggest risk to Christian affiliation was what he called the 'unchurched': those who have never had any active involvement in organised religion so that it plays no significant part in their family and social lives - like me, and my family.
-
Because a machine does not have the ability to express things like emotion etc. It gives the words not thei subtlty of vocal expression.
Which is entirely irrelevant to their reading of SD's posts.
-
Which is entirely irrelevant to their reading of SD's posts.
I do not consider it so or I would not have said it!
Let it go tho' as it is not directly relevant to the thread.
-
Times have changed though, and the authority and influence of organised Christianity has waned to the point that life can be lived without any reference to Christianity (aside of course from annoyance at the unearned privilege of the C of E in the UK and the assumption that what various clerics think is of any relevance or interest to anyone who is not a member of their various sects).
I think you are right there is a definite change, but it is the better kind of change – the sort that gradually becomes the background ethos and is not forced upon people, particularly people for whom the background is just that, a background, against which everyday life is lived without direct reference to it.
I was listening to an interview with a senior cleric (can't remember the details since it was a while ago) who pointed out that the biggest risk to Christian affiliation was what he called the 'unchurched': those who have never had any active involvement in organised religion so that it plays no significant part in their family and social lives - like me, and my family.
If only such clerics etc would face the facts that all human achievements have been achieved by, well, humans! It is no longer rational, and cannot be objective, to state that some kind of god must be behind it all.
-
SteveH in the Faith Sharing area, in the topic on why people decide which religion is best for them said this:
Bearing in mind the various burnings, hangings, etc etc carried out in the name of Christianity during the last nearly 2,000 years, I don't think people should be proud of their historical /Christianity, or hold it up as any kind of example for good!! That was the main reason why I followed the post with, 'Explain.' Perhaps SteveH might like to have a go at offering some general, if not particular, words or two on this?
Christianity is precisely what predicts human depravity. I think christianity can be used as an excuse.
Atheism has resulted in Stalinism and Pol Pot with their reductionist view of humanity. When atheists kill therefore they are almost certainly of the view that they are disposing of biological material which has no existence beyond political utility. The advent of illusion of selfists can only lead to further dehumanisation.
That is not to say that Atheists do not believe they are a more morally advanced sub species and many are convicted of their own special righteousness. THE KRAUSS AND SILBERMAN AFFAIRS however shows us that the Atheist project and hope for a new humanity based on the elimination of religion is just as doomed as any other.
American atheists have realised this but many British atheists discard the negative experiences of American atheism preferring to be animated by the Zeal and the rage.
In short Susan I have to put not only what us Christians have wrought in 2000 although I and any Christian I know wrought none of it against what you atheists wrought in 20 years but how each view humanity.
-
Vlad the Guilt by Associationist,
Atheism has resulted in Stalinism and Pol Pot...
Wrong
-
Vlad the Guilt by Associationist,
Wrong
Stalin and Pol POT were atheists though. SO much for atheism making 'better people'.
-
Vlad the Guilt by Associationist,
Stalin and Pol POT were atheists though.
Yes, but the lie you attempted was "Atheism has resulted in Stalinism and Pol Pot...". There's no logical path from atheism to despotism, but there can be from religion to despotism when the religion itself mandates despotic behaviour (tribal genocide for example).
SO much for atheism making 'better people'.
Something else you've just made up.
-
Vlad the Guilt by Associationist,
Yes, but the lie you attempted was "Atheism has resulted in Stalinism and Pol Pot...". There's no logical path from atheism to despotism,
Atheism means there is no God
No God means no judgment
no judgment means I can do what I like on a scale that I like.
-
Vlad the Guilt by Associationist,
Yes, but the lie you attempted was "Atheism has resulted in Stalinism and Pol Pot...". There's no logical path from atheism to despotism, but there can be from religion to despotism when the religion itself mandates despotic behaviour (tribal genocide for example).
Tribal genocide can happen without religion.
Despotism can arise from atheists and mandated by atheistic causes.
-
Vlad the Guilt by Associationist,
Atheism means there is no God
Wrong.
No God means no judgment.
Wrong.
no judgment means I can do what I like on a scale that I like.
Wrong.
I could tell you why you're wrong on every count as I have done so often in the past but i see little point as you'll only ignore or lie about the explanations when they're given to you.
-
Vlad the Guilt by Associationist,
Tribal genocide can happen without religion.
No-one says otherwsie.
Despotism can arise from atheists...
Guilt by association. They can also be philatelists and Chihuahua breeders. So?
...and mandated by atheistic causes.
Wrong.
-
Guilt by association. They can also be philatelists and Chihuahua breeders. So?
Philately and Chihuahau breeding are not starting points for a world view Hillside. Whereas Atheism is. Since if it is twuly adopted, then there is no barrier to dominate others.
-
Vlad the Guilt by Associationist,
Philately and Chihuahau breeding are not starting points for a world view Hillside. Whereas Atheism is.
Wrong. Atheism is no more a “world view” than a-leprechaunism is a “world view” – and neither mandate anything in any case.
Since if it is twuly adopted, then there is no barrier to dominate others.
Wrong.
-
Vlad the Guilt by Associationist,
Wrong. Atheism is no more a “world view” than a-leprechaunism is a “world view” – and neither mandate anything in any case.
Wrong.
I said it is a starting point for world view Hillside.
There is no God (Probably only became fashionable since There is no God wasn't allowed on the atheist bus.)
Therefore how does the world work.
or
There is no God
Therefore there is no judgment therefore I should seek to be able to behave how I like.
-
What's a world view?
-
What's a world view?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view
-
Why should one accept such an idea? I've never understood the sense of 'worldview'. My own mind is a rag-bag of stuff, not coherent at all.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view
That's just a summary of different and opposing thoughts which also says 'Worldview remains a confused and confusing concept in English', so if you are citing it you will need to do a bit more work. What do you think a world view is?
-
Why should one accept such an idea? I've never understood the sense of 'worldview'. My own mind is a rag-bag of stuff, not coherent at all.
I think once you have tackled all the qualifying ideas which make up a world view and left or offered a clear alternative to each idea you have expressed your own world view. If you deny clarity then you are probably wasting the other persons time.
Let us review then again what the Wikipedia article regards as a world view:
An explanation of the world
A futurology, answering the question "Where are we heading?"
Values, answers to ethical questions: "What should we do?"
A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action: "How should we attain our goals?"
An epistemology, or theory of knowledge: "What is true and false?"
An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own "building blocks", its origins and construction.
-
Vlad the Guilt by Associationist,
I said it is a starting point for world view Hillside.
Perhaps if you started by telling us what you think you mean by that term that would help. Personally I no more think of my atheism as a “world view” then I think of my finding arguments for any other supernatural whatnots to be a world view either.
There is no God (Probably only became fashionable since There is no God wasn't allowed on the atheist bus.)
Therefore how does the world work.
Wrong. Atheism does not say, “there is no god” as has been explained to you, what, 100 times? 1,000 maybe?
or
There is no God
Therefore there is no judgment therefore I should seek to be able to behave how I like.
Wrong. What makes you think that people need to have a belief in a celestial policeman to behave better than they otherwise would? Why for example aren't the jails disproportionately populated by atheists? And while you’re at it, how would you account for the people who have behaved horribly precisely because they think their particular celestial policeman’s wants them to?
-
I think once you have tackled all the qualifying ideas which make up a world view and left or offered a clear alternative to each idea you have expressed your own world view. If you deny clarity then you are probably wasting the other persons time.
Let us review then again what the Wikipedia article regards as a world view:
An explanation of the world
A futurology, answering the question "Where are we heading?"
Values, answers to ethical questions: "What should we do?"
A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action: "How should we attain our goals?"
An epistemology, or theory of knowledge: "What is true and false?"
An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own "building blocks", its origins and construction.
So you have a post which basically echoes the site you put up in that a 'Worldview remains a confused and confusing concept in English' or even Vladdish.
-
I think once you have tackled all the qualifying ideas which make up a world view and left or offered a clear alternative to each idea you have expressed your own world view. If you deny clarity then you are probably wasting the other persons time.
Let us review then again what the Wikipedia article regards as a world view:
An explanation of the world
A futurology, answering the question "Where are we heading?"
Values, answers to ethical questions: "What should we do?"
A praxeology, or methodology, or theory of action: "How should we attain our goals?"
An epistemology, or theory of knowledge: "What is true and false?"
An etiology. A constructed world-view should contain an account of its own "building blocks", its origins and construction.
Also in the para before the bit you quote it says
'While Leo Apostel and his followers clearly hold that individuals can construct worldviews, other writers regard worldviews as operating at a community level, or in an unconscious way. For instance, if one's worldview is fixed by one's language, as according to a strong version of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, one would have to learn or invent a new language in order to construct a new worldview.'
So the article doesn't have one view even in the bit you selected, and I presume you stating that it did was you just not reading it properly?
-
Also in the para before the bit you quote it says
'While Leo Apostel and his followers clearly hold that individuals can construct worldviews, other writers regard worldviews as operating at a community level, or in an unconscious way. For instance, if one's worldview is fixed by one's language, as according to a strong version of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, one would have to learn or invent a new language in order to construct a new worldview.'
So the article doesn't have one view even in the bit you selected, and I presume you stating that it did was you just not reading it properly?
What do you think you have not commented on which implies
a preferred explanatory framework of how we should live our lives in what you recognise recognise as the way the world is?
-
What do you think you have not commented on which implies
a preferred explanatory framework of how we should live our lives in what you recognise recognise as the way the world is?
Leaving aside you just ignoring what I posted, I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
-
Stalin and Pol POT were atheists though. SO much for atheism making 'better people'.
Who said that?
-
Maeght,
Who said that?
Vlad did. He's used up Canada's entire supply of dried grass and had to get extra supplies in from the Southern hemisphere over the years such is his monopoly of the straw man market.
-
Who said that?
Isn't implied in posts that state humanity as a whole would be bettering without religious belief? And we do see those on here. Vlad's continued use of individual cases is a straw man and not an effective argument but there is a point to be made, just not his.
-
NS,
Isn't implied in posts that state humanity as a whole would be bettering without religious belief? And we do see those on here. Vlad's continued use of individual cases is a straw man and not an effective argument but there is a point to be made, just not his.
That’s a fair point. Vlad’s guilt by association crap (“Stalin was an atheist. Stalin was a monster. Therefore atheism leads to monsters”) gets in the way of meaningful discussion but I happen to be one who thinks that, on balance, societies would be better served without religion than with it.
Right off the bat it’s worth saying that this has nothing to do with the truth values of various religious claims – Vlad’s god, Steve H's god, Zeus, Allah or any of the others could be real regardless of whether anyone thinking they’re real leads to more harm than good. There’s also no way of testing the proposition ether, short that is of somehow eliminating religion for a generation or two in some countries with similar religious profiles to others then counting the bodies in each afterwards.
And while were at it, how would we measure harm/good in any case? Religious wars are fairly obvious but generations of shame and guilt for committing “sins”? Or staffing a stall at the local vicarage jumble sale for a good cause? Or how about the comfort of thinking deceased loved ones have gone to heaven set against the abject terror of thinking unchristened babies are in purgatory and non-believing loved ones are in hell? How should we weigh the harm and good done by each?
So it’s broad brush stuff at best I think, but here’s mine for what it’s worth…
1. Hobbes vs Rousseau
A typical argument for religious belief is that, absent a celestial policeman we’d run amuck. This seems to me to be palpably nonsense – reciprocal altruism (co-operation, resource sharing, working collectively etc) come from long before gods arrived, and we see similar behaviours in other species too. There’s no evidence that jails are disproportionately full of atheists either (just the opposite in fact though income and educational attainment may have something to do with that), and it puts the theist in a difficult position too – is he really suggesting that, if he lost his faith, he’d be raping and pillaging at the drop of a hat? Seriously though?
No. We’re innately “good” I think for sound evolutionary reasons that function at the genomic rather than individual level and I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.
2. Without gods there’d be no moral road map to follow
C’mon now. First there are countless god stories so who’s to say which set of attendant “holy” texts contain the correct rules?
Second, treating morality as if it were an immutable phenomenon of the universe like gravity or the weak electro-magnetic force is too daft even to trouble with. We can opt out of a moral rule as we wish; we can’t opt out of gravity.
Third, as interpretation seems to be all even if you think some moral laws are correctly written in books how would anyone ever know that his interpretation in a given place at a given time is the “correct” one?
3. Faith is the enemy or reason
As someone said, he who hasn’t reasoned his way onto a belief cannot be reasoned out of it. “Faith” seems to me in it’s deepest sense to be more harmful than good because it so rarely allows for doubt, let alone for falsification. How could “but that’s my faith” be falsified even conceptually, and once someone has that absolute certainty what’s to stop him acting on it, regardless of the consequence? Press this button and you’ll accelerate the “end of times”? Bring it on!
4. What have the Romans ever done for us?
What use is religion in the furtherance of human affairs in any case, and what stifling and stultifying effect does it have on human flourishing and progress? It’s no co-incidence I think that nothing of value has come out of the Islamic world since the great flowering of learning was extinguished in favour of religious dogma in the 1400s or so, and nor can Christianity point to a cancer treatments or jet engines of satellites just popping out of privileging faith over just guessing. To the contrary, these and other faiths seem to me actively to have discouraged much learning, persecuted great minds, destroyed libraries etc that, had they kept their atrophying dibs off, would have led us to who knows what stage of development now.
To put it another way: would even an ardent theist lying injured in the road rather hear “make way, I’m a doctor” from the back of the crowd, or “make way, I’m a theologian”? That’s the thing I think – such people will espouse all sorts of confident statements of their truths when it doesn’t matter much, but when the chips are down I’d quite like some of the fruits of post enlightenment thinking please if it’s all the same to you.
Anyways, just a few thoughts while I have some time…
-
Isn't implied in posts that state humanity as a whole would be bettering without religious belief? And we do see those on here. Vlad's continued use of individual cases is a straw man and not an effective argument but there is a point to be made, just not his.
There is a difference between individuals being better people and society as a whole being better though I think. What exactly better means in each case is a question too. I take your point though.
-
There is a difference between individuals being better people and society as a whole being better though I think. What exactly better means in each case is a question too. I take your point though.
Agreed, that was the point I was trying to make. The question of what makes better applied to those who think society would be better though?
-
NS,
That’s a fair point. Vlad’s guilt by association crap (“Stalin was an atheist. Stalin was a monster. Therefore atheism leads to monsters”) gets in the way of meaningful discussion but I happen to be one who thinks that, on balance, societies would be better served without religion than with it.
Right off the bat it’s worth saying that this has nothing to do with the truth values of various religious claims – Vlad’s god, Steve H's god, Zeus, Allah or any of the others could be real regardless of whether anyone thinking they’re real leads to more harm than good. There’s also no way of testing the proposition ether, short that is of somehow eliminating religion for a generation or two in some countries with similar religious profiles to others then counting the bodies in each afterwards.
And while were at it, how would we measure harm/good in any case? Religious wars are fairly obvious but generations of shame and guilt for committing “sins”? Or staffing a stall at the local vicarage jumble sale for a good cause? Or how about the comfort of thinking deceased loved ones have gone to heaven set against the abject terror of thinking unchristened babies are in purgatory and non-believing loved ones are in hell? How should we weigh the harm and good done by each?
So it’s broad brush stuff at best I think, but here’s mine for what it’s worth…
1. Hobbes vs Rousseau
A typical argument for religious belief is that, absent a celestial policeman we’d run amuck. This seems to me to be palpably nonsense – reciprocal altruism (co-operation, resource sharing, working collectively etc) come from long before gods arrived, and we see similar behaviours in other species too. There’s no evidence that jails are disproportionately full of atheists either (just the opposite in fact though income and educational attainment may have something to do with that), and it puts the theist in a difficult position too – is he really suggesting that, if he lost his faith, he’d be raping and pillaging at the drop of a hat? Seriously though?
No. We’re innately “good” I think for sound evolutionary reasons that function at the genomic rather than individual level and I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.
2. Without gods there’d be no moral road map to follow
C’mon now. First there are countless god stories so who’s to say which set of attendant “holy” texts contain the correct rules?
Second, treating morality as if it were an immutable phenomenon of the universe like gravity or the weak electro-magnetic force is too daft even to trouble with. We can opt out of a moral rule as we wish; we can’t opt out of gravity.
Third, as interpretation seems to be all even if you think some moral laws are correctly written in books how would anyone ever know that his interpretation in a given place at a given time is the “correct” one?
3. Faith is the enemy or reason
As someone said, he who hasn’t reasoned his way onto a belief cannot be reasoned out of it. “Faith” seems to me in it’s deepest sense to be more harmful than good because it so rarely allows for doubt, let alone for falsification. How could “but that’s my faith” be falsified even conceptually, and once someone has that absolute certainty what’s to stop him acting on it, regardless of the consequence? Press this button and you’ll accelerate the “end of times”? Bring it on!
4. What have the Romans ever done for us?
What use is religion in the furtherance of human affairs in any case, and what stifling and stultifying effect does it have on human flourishing and progress? It’s no co-incidence I think that nothing of value has come out of the Islamic world since the great flowering of learning was extinguished in favour of religious dogma in the 1400s or so, and nor can Christianity point to a cancer treatments or jet engines of satellites just popping out of privileging faith over just guessing. To the contrary, these and other faiths seem to me actively to have discouraged much learning, persecuted great minds, destroyed libraries etc that, had they kept their atrophying dibs off, would have led us to who knows what stage of development now.
To put it another way: would even an ardent theist lying injured in the road rather hear “make way, I’m a doctor” from the back of the crowd, or “make way, I’m a theologian”? That’s the thing I think – such people will espouse all sorts of confident statements of their truths when it doesn’t matter much, but when the chips are down I’d quite like some of the fruits of post enlightenment thinking please if it’s all the same to you.
Anyways, just a few thoughts while I have some time…
That seems a lot of time
To pick up a few points, quickly, what is better needs to be defined by those who argue that it would be 'better'
Points 1 and 2 are arguments about why belief is better than non belief so irrelevant to the case that non belief is better than beluefr.
3. Since you think people don't choose belief is specious.
4. Lots of cherry picking. And since science arises our of our pattern recognition as does belief, what is it that you are arguing to be removed?
-
Agreed, that was the point I was trying to make.
Glad we agree.
The question of what makes better applied to those who think society would be better though?
Sorry?
-
Glad we agree.
Sorry?
If someone thinks that society would be better for society for humanity to not have belief, then it is their responsibility to define better.
-
If someone thinks that society would be better for society for humanity to not have belief, then it is their responsibility to define better.
Right. Yes, agreed.
-
And if someone thinks a society without belief would be ‘better’ then they'd need to show how they get to that.
-
Atheism means there is no God
No God means no judgment
no judgment means I can do what I like on a scale that I like.
What makes you think this is true?
Isn’t it equally true that salvation through Jesus Christ is a get-out-of-hell-free card for those who choose to see it as such?
-
And if someone thinks a society without belief would be ‘better’ then they'd need to show how they get to that.
And what it means! I am baffled.
-
NS,
That seems a lot of time
To pick up a few points, quickly, what is better needs to be defined by those who argue that it would be 'better'
Points 1 and 2 are arguments about why belief is better than non belief so irrelevant to the case that non belief is better than beluefr.
3. Since you think people don't choose belief is specious.
4. Lots of cherry picking. And since science arises our of our pattern recognition as does belief, what is it that you are arguing to be removed?
It was just a discursive post rather than a polemical one. If you don't want to reply in the same spirit that's fine.
-
NS,
It was just a discursive post rather than a polemical one If you don't want to reply in the same spirit that's fine.
Sorry, no idea what you are talking about. Was trying to do something in the time available. Not sure why any of the points I made are polemical as opposed to discursive.
-
Which are better, kittens or puppies?
-
Which are better, kittens or puppies?
Cheese
-
Rhi,
Which are better, kittens or puppies?
Which is better, literacy or illiteracy? High teenage pregnancy rates or low teenage pregnancy rates? High infant mortality or low infant mortality? More disease or less disease? Education or no education?
NS tried to turn this into an existential discussion about the nature of "better". There are basic indicators of wellbeing though routinely applied by for example various agencies of the UN and I was merely suggesting that societies would in general score higher on them without religion than with it. We can debate that, but whether such indicators point to "better", "worse" etc in some existential sense is a different conversation.
If it gets us out of pedant's corner I can re-phrase as something like, "according to most indicators of wellbeing routinely used by the relevant agencies I think societies would score higher without religion than with it" if you like but it seems a bit otiose to me.
-
I think asking people to define what they mean by society being better without religion is a perfectly fair thing to ask.
-
Rhi,
Which is better, literacy or illiteracy? High teenage pregnancy rates or low teenage pregnancy rates? High infant mortality or low infant mortality? More disease or less disease? Education or no education?
NS tried to turn this into an existential discussion about the nature of "better". There are basic indicators of wellbeing though routinely applied by for example various agencies of the UN and I was merely suggesting that societies would in general score higher on them without religion than with it. We can debate that, but whether such indicators point to "better", "worse" etc in some existential sense is a different conversation.
If it gets us out of pedant's corner I can re-phrase as something like, "according to most indicators of wellbeing routinely used by the relevant agencies I think societies would score higher without religion than with it" if you like but it seems a bit otiose to me.
Posting on my phone so thus will be scratty, but here goes.
I’m assuming that you believe that all those things in the first paragraph are ‘better’ in societies that aren’t religious? You’d need to show that religion causes illiteracy, high infant mortality rates etc. Could it be that poverty causes these things and poor countries also tend to be religious? And then could you demonstrate that poverty is caused by religion and isn’t a hangover from colonialism, say, or not the result of government corruption?
Let’s say we eradicated religion from the UK. Would that make it ‘better’? Would it change our literacy rates, for example? Ok, so we’d have marriage equality, one hopes, although we couldn’t be sure that liberalism will fill the void left by religion. Maybe there’d be a lower risk of terrorism, but only if you’d actually eradicated belief as well as religious practice, and history shows that we aren’t successful at that. Besides, religion is only one excuse for murderous barbarism; animal rights activists don’t like the humanist value that experiments on animals are ok.
So what other consqequences could there be? Well, after Grenfell it seems it was the religious organisations that provided food, shelter and emergency supplies. This is born out by my own experience of being a party of a religious organisation. With something like Grenfell we’d know where to go to offer help - the local religious building. Most suffering happens behind closed doors and we never know about it. When I was a part of a church community we’d get to hear of sudden crises and step in - providing for a homeless family who turned up, doing runs to the hospital so a disabled lady could visit her sick son, cooking meals for a bereaved family. The thing is, if you aren’t a part of a network you don’t know when there’s a need. Similar networks exist among parents and in the workplace, but for people with nowhere to turn the local church or other religion is where they go to. I know I could approach my local CofE church and the Baptist minister for support. I might not want to, but I could.
So in this great experiment of yours, who fills that void? And his would you measure ‘better’ in those circumstances?
As an aside, I’ve alwsys been interested in mysticism and find my life enriched by it. Is that a religious thing we’d be better off without too?
-
Rhi,
Which is better, literacy or illiteracy? High teenage pregnancy rates or low teenage pregnancy rates? High infant mortality or low infant mortality? More disease or less disease? Education or no education?
NS tried to turn this into an existential discussion about the nature of "better". There are basic indicators of wellbeing though routinely applied by for example various agencies of the UN and I was merely suggesting that societies would in general score higher on them without religion than with it. We can debate that, but whether such indicators point to "better", "worse" etc in some existential sense is a different conversation.
If it gets us out of pedant's corner I can re-phrase as something like, "according to most indicators of wellbeing routinely used by the relevant agencies I think societies would score higher without religion than with it" if you like but it seems a bit otiose to me.
I think that referring to someone asking what you mean when you make a claim as pedantic is laughable. It's not a fecking 'existential' discussion, just an attempt to understand what you are claiming. If you don't like being asked questions about a claim, then it makes any discussion 'existential' or otherwise a bit difficult.
Much of the indicators of wellbeing that your argument from authority appeals to have arguably been driven to better places because of religion. It's only because you take the bizarre cherry picking position that any good would happen anyway, but any bad is somehow caused by the religious belief that you manage to sustain the cognitive dissonance of your position.
-
Posting on my phone so thus will be scratty, but here goes.
I’m assuming that you believe that all those things in the first paragraph are ‘better’ in societies that aren’t religious? You’d need to show that religion causes illiteracy, high infant mortality rates etc. Could it be that poverty causes these things and poor countries also tend to be religious? And then could you demonstrate that poverty is caused by religion and isn’t a hangover from colonialism, say, or not the result of government corruption?
Let’s say we eradicated religion from the UK. Would that make it ‘better’? Would it change our literacy rates, for example? Ok, so we’d have marriage equality, one hopes, although we couldn’t be sure that liberalism will fill the void left by religion. Maybe there’d be a lower risk of terrorism, but only if you’d actually eradicated belief as well as religious practice, and history shows that we aren’t successful at that. Besides, religion is only one excuse for murderous barbarism; animal rights activists don’t like the humanist value that experiments on animals are ok.
So what other consqequences could there be? Well, after Grenfell it seems it was the religious organisations that provided food, shelter and emergency supplies. This is born out by my own experience of being a party of a religious organisation. With something like Grenfell we’d know where to go to offer help - the local religious building. Most suffering happens behind closed doors and we never know about it. When I was a part of a church community we’d get to hear of sudden crises and step in - providing for a homeless family who turned up, doing runs to the hospital so a disabled lady could visit her sick son, cooking meals for a bereaved family. The thing is, if you aren’t a part of a network you don’t know when there’s a need. Similar networks exist among parents and in the workplace, but for people with nowhere to turn the local church or other religion is where they go to. I know I could approach my local CofE church and the Baptist minister for support. I might not want to, but I could.
So in this great experiment of yours, who fills that void? And his would you measure ‘better’ in those circumstances?
As an aside, I’ve alwsys been interested in mysticism and find my life enriched by it. Is that a religious thing we’d be better off without too?
Yes, I see religion and belief in all its guises as a 'symptom' of many parts of our humanity and it has good and bad aspects. Community has a mirror in tribalism but that's true or more than just religion. Much of the progress that is seen in indicators of well being could be put down to religions in one view, but then in that progress some suffering has also happened. I don't see how someone can claim that it's just the good or bad that is caused by religion, it seems illogical. Indeed since I see religion as a symptom of what we are rather than a cause, and I don't understand how an atheist can see it any other way. it is not something that you can attribute things to.
-
Yes, I see religion and belief in all its guises as a 'symptom' of many parts of our humanity and it has good and bad aspects. Community has a mirror in tribalism but that's true or more than just religion. Much of the progress that is seen in indicators of well being could be put down to religions in one view, but then in that progress some suffering has also happened. I don't see how someone can claim that it's just the good or bad that is caused by religion, it seems illogical. Indeed since I see religion as a symptom of what we are rather than a cause, and I don't understand how an atheist can see it any other way. it is not something that you can attribute things to.
Yes, absolutely, religion is something we do because of who we are. Bad shit happens apparently because of it but if it’s a part of us to do stupid things because of our beliefs then in the absence of religion we’d do it because of beliefs we have about people with blue eyes or who support Fulham. It’s what we do. But somehow it often manifests as an expression of what is good about us, and it’s irritating when that gets dismissed.
-
Yes, absolutely, religion is something we do because of who we are. Bad shit happens apparently because of it but if it’s a part of us to do stupid things because of our beliefs then in the absence of religion we’d do it because of beliefs we have about people with blue eyes or who support Fulham. It’s what we do. But somehow it often manifests as an expression of what is good about us, and it’s irritating when that gets dismissed.
And that dismissal is also rules out what 'good' is felt by the individual. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that an overall societal approach seems to ignore the personal. That's why while I support secularism, it shouldn't in my view extend into the personal.
-
And that dismissal is also rules out what 'good' is felt by the individual. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that an overall societal approach seems to ignore the personal. That's why while I support secularism, it shouldn't in my view extend into the personal.
I’d be suspicious of a politician that put aside their beliefs in order to vote along party lines. So I’m not sure how secular we can ever be. But broadly, yes, I agree with you.
-
I’d be suspicious of a politician that put aside their beliefs in order to vote along party lines. So I’m not sure how secular we can ever be. But broadly, yes, I agree with you.
oh, I agree. I see secularism as institutional not personal.So Dan Walker presenting breakfast TV is not a problem, especially because of this
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2018/06/05/dan-walker-piers-morgan-12-times-owned-on-twitter/2/
-
oh, I agree. I see secularism as institutional not personal.So Dan Walker presenting breakfast TV is not a problem, especially because of this
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2018/06/05/dan-walker-piers-morgan-12-times-owned-on-twitter/2/
Not remotely relevant but this made me laugh.
https://www.wwe.com/article/corey-graves-piers-morgan-twitter-beef
-
NS,
That’s a fair point. Vlad’s guilt by association crap (“Stalin was an atheist. Stalin was a monster. Therefore atheism leads to monsters”)
3. Faith is the enemy or reason
Atheism leads to monsters
Atheism can lead to monsters
Smoking causes cancer
Smoking can cause cancer
Faith is the enemy of reason
You might as well say fun is the enemy of reason
Or
Morality is the enemy of reason
-
Hi Rhi,
Posting on my phone so thus will be scratty, but here goes.
I’m assuming that you believe that all those things in the first paragraph are ‘better’ in societies that aren’t religious?
In general, yes. I‘d go further I think and suggest that there’s a linear relationship between the degree of fundamentalism and the scores for those indicators. Education for girls for example in Taliban-controlled areas is catastrophically bad; in (still pretty strict religiously) Pakistan it’s pretty bad but not as bad (“According to the 2011 Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Program, approximately twice as many males as females receive a secondary education in Pakistan” - Wiki) and in secular countries it’s pretty much even-stevens.
You’d need to show that religion causes illiteracy, high infant mortality rates etc. Could it be that poverty causes these things and poor countries also tend to be religious? And then could you demonstrate that poverty is caused by religion and isn’t a hangover from colonialism, say, or not the result of government corruption?
Yes you would, but unsustainably large numbers of children mandated by the prevailing religion for example is clearly a direct contributor to poverty. That’s why various of the UN agencies for example spend so much effort trying to reduce poverty by running birth control programmes (http://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/funds-programmes-specialized-agencies-and-others/).
Let’s say we eradicated religion from the UK. Would that make it ‘better’? Would it change our literacy rates, for example? Ok, so we’d have marriage equality, one hopes, although we couldn’t be sure that liberalism will fill the void left by religion. Maybe there’d be a lower risk of terrorism, but only if you’d actually eradicated belief as well as religious practice, and history shows that we aren’t successful at that. Besides, religion is only one excuse for murderous barbarism; animal rights activists don’t like the humanist value that experiments on animals are ok.
But you’ve picked a country where religious influence is relatively marginal, and probably declining. The job’s already been done! Would our society nonetheless be “better” if the church was disestablished and treated as a private members’ club? In my view probably yes – consider the abortion issue in Northern Ireland just now for example and the role of the church.
So what other consqequences could there be? Well, after Grenfell it seems it was the religious organisations that provided food, shelter and emergency supplies. This is born out by my own experience of being a party of a religious organisation. With something like Grenfell we’d know where to go to offer help - the local religious building. Most suffering happens behind closed doors and we never know about it. When I was a part of a church community we’d get to hear of sudden crises and step in - providing for a homeless family who turned up, doing runs to the hospital so a disabled lady could visit her sick son, cooking meals for a bereaved family. The thing is, if you aren’t a part of a network you don’t know when there’s a need. Similar networks exist among parents and in the workplace, but for people with nowhere to turn the local church or other religion is where they go to. I know I could approach my local CofE church and the Baptist minister for support. I might not want to, but I could.
Which is something I acknowledged. Clearly some people are motivated by their communities (in this case religious ones) to do good things they might not otherwise have been motivated to do. And a good thing too. Would such good works be done by communities that didn’t have religious beliefs, would new communities of people wanting to do good emerge if churches were abolished tomorrow, is the negative effect of religious teaching a price worth paying for the positive effects your describe?
There’s no way to know for sure, but my sense is that most people are mostly good for most of the time. They want to do the right thing, and church communities are a convenient focal point for these feelings to be harnessed and deployed. Do they behave that way because “holy” books tell them too (as well as tell them some pretty grim stuff too)? Not in my experience no – our altruism is innate, and I see no reason for it to disappear if churches did.
So in this great experiment of yours…
What experiment?
… who fills that void?
The same people who fill it now, and maybe more if they saw some gaps and were no longer put off by the religious affiliations of the effort. Our kids’ primary school for example had a plan a while back to send presents to African children. All went well until it was revealed that the effort was associated with Billy Graham (or his son from memory) and the packages would be sent with various evangelical messages enclosed. Maybe half the parents pulled out at that point, and only came back when the religious bit was dropped.
…And his would you measure ‘better’ in those circumstances?
Using the indicators I listed. If they’re good enough for the UN…
As an aside, I’ve alwsys been interested in mysticism and find my life enriched by it. Is that a religious thing we’d be better off without too?
Dunno. How does it affect the way you treat other people? My guess is that it makes no difference, so it’s no-one’s business but your own. Other religious adherents (and their clerics) however are often not nearly so harmless.
-
Vladdo,
Atheism leads to monsters
Wrong.
Atheism can lead to monsters
Wrong.
Smoking causes cancer
Right.
Smoking can cause cancer
Right.
Faith is the enemy of reason
Right.
You might as well say fun is the enemy of reason
Wrong.
Or
Morality is the enemy of reason
Wrong.
-
No God means no judgment
No it doesn't. Society judges.
-
Philately and Chihuahau breeding are not starting points for a world view Hillside. Whereas Atheism is. Since if it is twuly adopted, then there is no barrier to dominate others.
Well OK. Stalin was introduced to Marxism while he was studying to be a Christian priest in the Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary.
Looks like it's Christianity that produces megalomanic dictators.
-
No it doesn't. Society judges.
Then that in turn leads to a not getting caught morality.
-
Vladdo,
Wrong.
Wrong.
Right.
Right.
Right.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Carry on with this economy of words please.
-
Vladdo,
Carry on with this economy of words please.
Meet me half way - you economise on the mendaicty and I'll economise on the words needed to call you out on it.
Deal?
-
Vladdo,
Meet me half way - you economise on the mendaicty and I'll economise on the words needed to call you out on it.
Deal?
Were it not for the economy of words being more likely down to your inability to justify your assertions
And of course the suggestion of mendacity, I may have considered your offer.
-
Vladdo,
Were it not for the economy of words being more likely down to your inability to justify your assertions
The economy of words was actually just the repetition of the conclusions of the falsifying arguments to your mistakes that you’ve been given countless times and that you then either just ignore or lie about.
What for example would be the point of explaining to you yet again your misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of what atheism actually entails when it’s been done so many times already only for you to repeat your mistake over and over again?
And of course the suggestion of mendacity, I may have considered your offer.
It’s not a suggestion, it’s a fact – your relentless lying here is what characterises you. Worse, every time you’re caught in a lie you just ignore being caught or repeat the lie. You have nothing to contribute.
-
Then that in turn leads to a not getting caught morality.
Yeah, like Christians don't subscribe to that.
-
jeremy,
Yeah, like Christians don't subscribe to that.
But Vlad's right isn't he? That's why prisons are full of atheists and there aren't Christian prisoners.
Oh, hang on though....
...Sorry. My bad :(
-
jeremy,
But Vlad's right isn't he? That's why prisons are full of atheists and there aren't Christian prisoners.
Oh, hang on though....
...Sorry. My bad :(
Indeed.
Anyway, a more considered response. The idea that morality defined by society is a "not getting caught" morality is obviously utter bullshit. Our society does not, as a rule condone "getting away with it". The fact that it can happen is no more a signal that society condones it than the fact that rape can happen is a signal that society condones rape.
On the other hand, if an organisation that claims to be God's authority on Earth indulges in covering up pedophilia by its staff, that is a "getting away with it" morality.
-
Hi Rhi,
As an aside, I’ve alwsys been interested in mysticism and find my life enriched by it. Is that a religious thing we’d be better off without too?
Dunno. How does it affect the way you treat other people? My guess is that it makes no difference, so it’s no-one’s business but your own. Other religious adherents (and their clerics) however are often not nearly so harmless.
Actually, I seem to remember, way back in the early days (MY early days) here, a discussion between myself and Rhiannon on the subject of differences and similarities between out two widely different Pagan paths.
If I remember aright, and I'm sure that the lady will conform or deny - in the latter case making this post completely irrelevant - that one of the things we agreed upon was what is known as the Wiccan Rede which is one of the very foundation stones of Wiccan Paganism ;-
An it harm none, do what you will;
An it harm some, do what you must.
This I would say does affect the way in which both Rhiannon and I treat other people.
-
jeremy,
But Vlad's right isn't he? That's why prisons are full of atheists and there aren't Christian prisoners.
Oh, hang on though....
...Sorry. My bad :(
Maybe you could revisit that in terms of UK statistics and applying your logic say to proportions of different groups of people in prison. And then reflect on how that then makes you look.....
As you say, your bad.
-
Vladdo,
Maybe you could revisit that in terms of UK statistics and applying your logic say to proportions of different groups of people in prison. And then reflect on how that then makes you look.....
As you say, your bad.
Nope, no idea. What are you even trying to say here?
-
Indeed.
Anyway, a more considered response. The idea that morality defined by society is a "not getting caught" morality is obviously utter bullshit. Our society does not, as a rule condone "getting away with it". The fact that it can happen is no more a signal that society condones it than the fact that rape can happen is a signal that society condones rape.
On the other hand, if an organisation that claims to be God's authority on Earth indulges in covering up pedophilia by its staff, that is a "getting away with it" morality.
Lots of organisations have covered that up.
However the biblical warning is that Sin will find you out and it may be that the Roman catholic church is dissolved in the near future.
However the RC church or indeed any church has very little operative power in secular Britain and yet Sin, self interest and evil, not getting caught still seem alive and well and thriving.
-
Vladdo,
Nope, no idea. What are you even trying to say here?
You seem to be saying that wrong doing and immorality in a group is measured by the proportion of that group in prison.
-
Vladdo,
Lots of organisations have covered that up.
However the biblical warning is that Sin will find you out and it may be that the Roman catholic church is dissolved in the near future.
However the RC church or indeed any church has very little operative power in secular Britain and yet Sin, self interest and evil, not getting caught still seem alive and well and thriving.
And yet the highly Christian US has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world at 716 per 100,000 (0.7% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate), whereas the more secular UK is down at 0.13% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_prison_population). It’s lower still in even more secular countries (eg Sweden with just 66 per 100,000, ie 0.07%).
Doncha hate it when facts get in the way of daft assertions?
-
Vladdo,
You seem to be saying that wrong doing and immorality in a group is measured by the proportion of that group in prison.
It's fairly crude, but still a useful indicator. If "atheist morality" is just about not being found out, why aren't the jails disproportionately full of atheists rather than the other way around?
-
Vladdo,
And yet the highly Christian US has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world at 716 per 100,000 (0.7% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate), whereas the more secular UK is down at 0.13% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_prison_population
). It’s lower still in even more secular countries (eg Sweden with just 66 per 100,000, ie 0.07%).
Doncha hate it when facts get in the way of daft assertions?
I do not dispute your facts but you are assuming each country has the same will to imprison. That is not true.
You are just diddling with the stats flip flopping between Christians in prison and numbers in prison.
Do you have the facts for the populations of Prison/Gulag inmates for the mainly atheist soviet union.
-
Vladdo,
It's fairly crude, but still a useful indicator. If "atheist morality" is just about not being found out, why aren't the jails disproportionately full of atheists rather than the other way around?
If it is useful then your logic applies to any group you apply it to...careful on that one.
I think you are confusing law with morality.
At the moment, Actual professed atheism by name will, I imagine in this country at least be extremely popular in well healed middle classes who, when, mainly Christian identifying would have been as represented in prison figures as they are now. Crude maybe but less crude than your approach.
I think this will change when the apatheist population comes into any equation.
Finally what other motivation, other than not getting caught, can 'atheist morality' appeal to?
-
Vladdo,
I do not dispute your facts but you are assuming each country has the same will to imprison. That is not true.
You are just diddling with the stats flip flopping between Christians in prison and numbers in prison.
Wrong again. Yes there’s an overlap between the “will to imprison” and the religiosity or otherwise of the inmates, but that doesn’t explain away why so many in a Christian country are committing crimes in the first place.
If you want figure for the atheist vs religious inmate percentages though try here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/21/atheists-now-make-up-0-1-of-the-federal-prison-population/
It comes with various caveats, but the bottom line is that the % of atheists in US prisons is extremely low – pretty much the opposite of what you’d expect if atheists didn’t behave immorally just for fear of being caught, whereas theists believed they were certain to be caught by an omniscient god. Remember, I’m not arguing here that atheists are necessarily better people because of their atheism – just that they’re not worse ones because of it despite your casual slur to that effect.
Do you have the facts for the populations of Prison/Gulag inmates for the mainly atheist soviet union.
One of the more disgusting efforts you repeatedly attempt that one – guilt by association: “Stalin’s Russia was atheist, Stalin’s Russia did terrible things, therefore atheism…”. Problem is, there’s no logical path of any kind from atheism to genocide (unlike OT Christianity by the way). At the time of the Gulags there was very little meat around so Soviet Russia was also pretty much vegetarian – why not then apply your slur to the causal effect of vegetarianism on Stalin’s Russia?
If it is useful then your logic applies to any group you apply it to...careful on that one.
I think you are confusing law with morality.
Wrong again. It’s not an exact fit, but acts generally considered to be immoral (murder, rape, theft etc) are also by and large treated as unlawful. Some religious idiocy (homophobia for example) is not longer unlawful (at least in most secular countries) but the fit is close enough for the argument to stand.
At the moment, Actual professed atheism by name will, I imagine in this country at least be extremely popular in well healed middle classes who, when, mainly Christian identifying would have been as represented in prison figures as they are now. Crude maybe but less crude than your approach.
What are you trying to say here?
I think this will change when the apatheist population comes into any equation.
What will change, and what has apatheism got to do with it?
Finally what other motivation, other than not getting caught, can 'atheist morality' appeal to?
First, there’s no such thing as “atheist morality” as you put it – that’s just something you’ve made up.
Second, the answer is having no inclination to do it in the first place. Obviously. I’m an atheist, and it wouldn’t even cross my mind to rob a bank. Why would it?
-
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/08/21/atheists-now-make-up-0-1-of-the-federal-prison-population/
I have a lot of time for this blog and the great work it has done about the recent New atheist misconduct affairs. That said, you are appealing to American atheism.
If it is valid to look at American encarceration statistics then it is special pleading to bid us not to consider Soviet encarceration.
Also since you think law and morality is such a good fit, we know that Law at least in this country is being commoditised meaning you get the law and justice you can pay and lobby for.
-
Atheism leads to monsters
Atheism can lead to monsters
You've failed to prove any causal link.
Smoking causes cancer
Smoking can cause cancer
The causal link there is well established.
Faith is the enemy of reason
You might as well say fun is the enemy of reason
Or
Morality is the enemy of reason
No. We can see that faith is the enemy of reason because your posts on any faith topic are devoid of reason. However, your posts on some topics e.g. Brexit are much more coherent.
And just to remind you: Stalin was introduced to Marxism whilst studying to become a priest. Stalin is (by your own arguments) a product of Christianity.
-
Smoking causes cancer
Smoking can cause cancer
The causal link there is well established.
The point, surely, is that the first statement is inaccurate, and unnecessarily alarmist. If you smoke cigarettes, you stand a much greater chance of getting lung cancer (and a slightly greater chance if you smoke a pipe or cigars), but you may get away with it. Therefore, "Smoking can cause cancer" is more accurate.
-
Steve H,
The point, surely, is that the first statement is inaccurate, and unnecessarily alarmist. If you smoke cigarettes, you stand a much greater chance of getting lung cancer (and a slightly greater chance if you smoke a pipe or cigars), but you may get away with it. Therefore, "Smoking can cause cancer" is more accurate.
No, the point was that he tried to draw an entirely false analogy between atheism and smoking.
-
Vladdo,
I have a lot of time for this blog and the great work it has done about the recent New atheist misconduct affairs. That said, you are appealing to American atheism.
No, I’m explaining to you the stats for the incidence of atheist inmates in the (highly religious) US context. It’s tiny, and so contradicts your claim that the only reason atheists don’t behave more badly is the fear of getting caught.
If it is valid to look at American encarceration statistics then it is special pleading to bid us not to consider Soviet encarceration.
First, you don’t understand the meaning of “special pleading”. It’s no such thing.
Second the Soviet stats have bugger all to do with anything because they’d relate only to your slur by association attempt.
Also…
There is no “also” – you just crashed and burned again.
…since you think law and morality is such a good fit, we know that Law at least in this country is being commoditised meaning you get the law and justice you can pay and lobby for.
Did that even mean something in your head when you typed it?
-
The causal link there is well established.
The point, surely, is that the first statement is inaccurate, and unnecessarily alarmist. If you smoke cigarettes, you stand a much greater chance of getting lung cancer (and a slightly greater chance if you smoke a pipe or cigars), but you may get away with it. Therefore, "Smoking can cause cancer" is more accurate.
A good example of cognative dissonence that's practiced by lots of smokers in an effort to rationalise their addiction to themselves.
Smoking does cause cancer without any doubt, by secondry smoke to unfortunate by standers etc
Unfortunatly stinking like a dirty old ashtray goes along with the habit too.
Regards ippy
-
A good example of cognative dissonence that's practiced by lots of smokers in an effort to rationalise their addiction to themselves.
Smoking does cause cancer without any doubt, by secondry smoke to unfortunate by standers etc
Unfortunatly stinking like a dirty old ashtray goes along with the habit too.
Regards ippy
Regards ippy
Does it always cause cancer?
-
A good example of cognative dissonence that's practiced by lots of smokers in an effort to rationalise their addiction to themselves.
Smoking does cause cancer without any doubt, by secondry smoke to unfortunate by standers etc
Unfortunatly stinking like a dirty old ashtray goes along with the habit too.
Regards ippy
Regards ippy
I'm not denying the great danger of smoking, but it doesn't kill every single smoker, so "...can cause cancer" is more accurate than "...causes cancer". It is also the case that cigars and pipes are much less dangerous than cigs, because you don't inhale - and if you don't believe me, ask Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the main anti-smoking lobby group in the UK, who published figures showing that cigarette smokers are 70% more likely to die prematurely than non-smokers, but cigar and pipe smokers are 10% more likely. ASH are not likely to down-play the danger of any type of smoking, so I think we can assume that these are maximum figures. As a pipe-smoker, I recognise that 10% is a significant figure, but it's one I can live with.
-
I'm not denying the great danger of smoking, but it doesn't kill every single smoker, so "...can cause cancer" is more accurate than "...causes cancer". It is also the case that cigars and pipes are much less dangerous than cigs, because you don't inhale - and if you don't believe me, ask Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the main anti-smoking lobby group in the UK, who published figures showing that cigarette smokers are 70% more likely to die prematurely than non-smokers, but cigar and pipe smokers are 10% more likely. ASH are not likely to down-play the danger of any type of smoking, so I think we can assume that these are maximum figures. As a pipe-smoker, I recognise that 10% is a significant figure, but it's one I can live with.
I'm using a tablet without a spell checker, I have a job spelling my own name so you'll have to manage some phonetic spelling from me.
Carcinogenics cause cancer, cigarettes contain carcinogenics therefore cigarettes cause cancer, there is no way around that fact other than for those few people that wrongly try to justify to themselves their continuing to smoke in spite of the well known fully understood facts about the downside of smoking tobacco products.
The facts remain whatever feeble attempt is made to somehow semitisise themselves in their own mind around these facts; it's called cognative dissonence.
Regards ippy
-
I'm not denying any facts. Cigarettes are major killers. Pipes and cigars are much less dangerous, though they are still not harmless.
-
Sorry but what's the title of this thread, please?
-
'Historically Christian' which could mean 'Culturally Christian', ie living in a land when majority of people were Christian from a long time past - like here.People used to call us a 'Christian country' but we aren't now if ever we were - it was cultural and still is up to a point.
I lost the thread when it went on to smoking - to which I have no objection as long as not inflicted on others which it isn't nowadays. Who dares to smoke anywhere that non-smokers inhabit in this day and age? However I support the right of people to smoke if they want to, knowing the dangers, away from non-smokers. I hope I never change and don't ever become an anti-smoking bigot. In my house guests can smoke but I have a little area at the back of the house where they can do that, a sort of porch added on the utility room which opens out to back garden and, in good weather, outside; it affects no-one except the smokers.
-
The unlamented former poster small thorny plant is an anti-smoking fanatic, who thinks it should be banned because she dislikes it. She was never noted for subtlety of thought.
-
It is banned in public places, what more do people want?
-
It is banned in public places, what more do people want?
The idea that smoking is wrong is implied from Biblical teaching because it tells us about the purification of bodily functions so that we are able to repair and get stronger...anyone who can show me that destroying our bronchial tubes, and blackening our lungs so that they shrivel up into leaking and diseased organs in our body, is a useful practice...will never convince me of their sanity...and many scientists under the orders of their tobacco bosses, tried to tell us that it was...until it became indisputable. You see...God was right in the first place but we (including me) fell for all that deceit.
-
The idea that smoking is wrong is implied from Biblical teaching because it tells us about the purification of bodily functions so that we are able to repair and get stronger...anyone who can show me that destroying our bronchial tubes, and blackening our lungs so that they shrivel up into leaking and diseased organs in our body, is a useful practice...will never convince me of their sanity...and many scientists under the orders of their tobacco bosses, tried to tell us that it was...until it became indisputable. You see...God was right in the first place but we (including me) fell for all that deceit.
Which scientists said smoking was a useful practice?
-
Which scientists said smoking was a useful practice?
The ones who tried to tell us that no serious harm was done by smoking...and it didn't cause many health issues. Scientists whom, it seems, all worked for the tobacco companies...I remember it clearly from my younger years. There was, towards the end of the debate, heated discussions among key people who, ultimately, got some useful legislation on tobacco advertising...but not without its debunkers.
-
The ones who tried to tell us that no serious harm was done by smoking...and it didn't cause many health issues. Scientists whom, it seems, all worked for the tobacco companies...I remember it clearly from my younger years. There was, towards the end of the debate, heated discussions among key people who, ultimately, got some useful legislation on tobacco advertising...but not without its debunkers.
Who were they? The scientific community recognised quite early that smoking was hazardous to health. Getting that accepted proved difficult. Which scientists promoted smoking?