I think atheists are a diverse group, not unlike religious people. They stand for whatever they think is moral based on the social context they grew up in and their own personal experiences. Atheists are not confined to a doctrine, however, and can make up their own mind on "the issues", meaning atheists are not often a unified group. Funny enough, I think more and more religious followers are allowing themselves some leeway when following their beliefs as well.
Horror of Religion
- Thread starter wet_suit_one
- Start date
No, because from a accuracy point of view, the KJB is a mess. It is really great art, but not great scholarship.Do you think we should remind him when the KJB version was written, hint ~1611, and it has still remained the most common/wide spread version of the scripture?
Although it is really hard to tell just how far the common church member strayed from doctrine historically, I agree with you that this is a trend we are seeing. Personally I think it is a good trend, but others would disagree.I think atheists are a diverse group, not unlike religious people. They stand for whatever they think is moral based on the social context they grew up in and their own personal experiences. Atheists are not confined to a doctrine, however, and can make up their own mind on "the issues", meaning atheists are not often a unified group. Funny enough, I think more and more religious followers are allowing themselves some leeway when following their beliefs as well.
Unbelievable
FAST
Holy shit, (is that a religious saying?) ...... we agree, I also see that going to some large building every sunday, is becoming less important for the religious.Although it is really hard to tell just how far the common church member strayed from doctrine historically, I agree with you that this is a trend we are seeing. Personally I think it is a good trend, but others would disagree.
FAST
Miracles happen ;-)Holy shit, (is that a religious saying?) ...... we agree, I also see that going to some large building every sunday, is becoming less important for the religious.
FAST
But strangely enough a recent survey says that large building is important to a lot of atheists, with 1 in five of them going to church regularly. In some communities a church serves many positive functions beyond being a place of worship.
Are you suggesting that all atheists stand for the "social contract." Is there a voice for all atheists who speaks for you? Or do some atheists believe in different things?
Right now I think atheists are an amorphous, undefined group. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, it just makes it tougher to discuss atheism in a political context.
The social contract is the basis of any belief system religious or secular because the question at the heart of every society is how much of personal liberty is the individual willing to surrender in order to have a stable environment in which to live.
The concept of the tabula rasa allows for the individual to formulate a system of beliefs based upon experience and perception. Obviously this can include religious and secular experience. The horror of religion to me is the notion that any one teaching has the more perfect path to salvation and since is the true word of god all non believers are apostates. From this notion of moral superiority flows the crusades, the inquisition, jihad , the second intifadah, the list is endless.
Locke, in his
"Letters Concerning Toleration (1689–92) in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance. Three arguments are central: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.[15] "Wikipedia
These are the ideas that heavily influenced the writers of the constitution and any belief system that strays from these principles follows a path of tyranny such is the horror of religion.
I highly doubt you have read any of his books. You OFTEN claim to have read an author's work but have been found lacking in knowledge of the works you claim to have read. You have been caught in this before. Give it up. Your empty headed opinion is pure agenda based.I have read two or three of Harris' books and they are okay, but he does tend to get his facts wrong, and has some weak logic.
Thanks for dropping by with some unfounded allegations SB. Your contribution is appreciated.I highly doubt you have read any of his books. You OFTEN claim to have read an author's work but have been found lacking in knowledge of the works you claim to have read. You have been caught in this before. Give it up. Your empty headed opinion is pure agenda based.
But you do sling some cute insults around with a complete lack of grace and class.
But help me out...what is my agenda?
I can assure you that the catholic church teaches this doctrine regardless of what document you cite. I have personally experienced it many times over the last half century. Perhaps no one told the priests.So his piece, where he talks about all those people in India etc prima facie going to hell because they are not Christians, is not a Catholic doctrine.
Another note "assiduously observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all" supports the point that one does not need religion to have a 'good' and 'just' society. To suggest that god inscribed 'natural law' into the hearts of men is more stupid childishness.
What do you believe is the one doctrine?The problem with debating atheism or about atheism is that it is such an amorphous group, with very little, or even perhaps just one doctrine.
Lynxguru. Perfect name for a posting like this.Religion should be put into the garbage heap of history. It has run its course. Science has liberated us from these shackles.
Yeah. Sure you have.So far I have read Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and some Dennett (who I think is much more impressive than the other three).
I grew up in a Catholic school founded by a missionary from Rome. The doctrine of hellI can assure you that the catholic church teaches this doctrine regardless of what document you cite. I have personally experienced it many times over the last half century. Perhaps no one told the priests.
was never taught to me the way it was presented to you in my 12 years of Catholic education.
I was introduced into the doctrine of eternal punishment awaiting non-Christians from
non-Catholic fundamentalist evangelists in my adulthood. None of my catholic teachers
ever taught me anything like non-Christians would all end in hell. I was only taught that
those who committed mortal sins and never repented would face eternal punishment.
Over years I've got to know other people from other Catholic schools run by Jesuits.
I can say with certainty that the Catholic has no longer adhered to the doctrine of
hell as it was in the dark ages at least since the last century.
BTW, I've never joined the Catholic church or subscribed to any of its creeds.
So your argument is that we should accept your anecdotal evidence over the official documents from the Vatican? That would seem like a wise approach.I can assure you that the catholic church teaches this doctrine regardless of what document you cite. I have personally experienced it many times over the last half century. Perhaps no one told the priests.
Another note "assiduously observing the natural law and its precepts which God has inscribed in the hearts of all" supports the point that one does not need religion to have a 'good' and 'just' society. To suggest that god inscribed 'natural law' into the hearts of men is more stupid childishness.
I have no doubt that individuals priests preach things very different from the party line, but if you want to discuss the official position of the RCC, that is what is it, whether you like it or not.
I'm not sure I understand your question.What do you believe is the one doctrine?
If you are asking if I have figured out either:
a) that there is a single central organizing doctrine or philosophy that applies to all atheists; or
b) that there is a single central "True" organizing doctrine or philosophy that everyone should follow to live a righteous life:
The answer would be "no" to both. I am still learning, and trying to approach new ideas with an open mind. I don't claim to know the "one true path" or if there is one. I don't know if there is a life after death or if there is a god, but I am optimisitic. However if there is a god and life after death, it would suit more of my worldview that there are many paths to eternal life, rather than just one. But I don't claim to have the answers for anyone else.
Actually, I have. And since you have chosen (for some unknown reason) to attack me personally, I am sure you will allow me the indulgence of a personal explanation.Yeah. Sure you have.
Some of the people who drive me absolutely batty are the young earth creationists. And I started reading Gould and Dawkins to better understand evolution and because of their wonderfully well constructed arguments against intelligent design and in favour of evolution (I am muddling through "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" atm). I think I own and have read everything Dawkins has published for the popular press and own a first edition hard copy of God Delusion (I will assume you know why that is important). I have not bought Dawkins' YA book just out and probably won't. I own most of Gould's books for the popular press and two or three of his science heavy books. I am missing a couple of his older popular (collected columns) books, but will probably scoop them off ABEbooks for my next beach vacation.
On a vacation in South Africa I met this fascinating American guy from Texas who was living in China helping them do knock off plate patterns and he was reading "Letters to a Christian Nation." He was a bright and interesting guy and commended the book to me. I bought and read it and thought it was good (although flawed). I then read "End of Faith." I have a copy of "Moral Landscape" but have not yet had time to read it. I will get to it.
And Dennett, oddly enough, was recommended to me by a very attractive waitress who I was getting a little too friendly with who was in school studying philosophy. She was reading Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which I then read and found to be a very powerful book, well written and well reasoned, I think it is a real tour de force no matter where you fall on these issues. I have since read Breaking the Spell, which I think is good, but not as good as Dangerous Idea. I find Dennett the most reasoned and balanced of the popular atheists.
Honestly I don't remember when I started reading Hitchens, but I remember reading articles of his in undergrad, on other topics. I have read God is not Great and the Portable Atheist.
If I actually cared what you thought I would be pleased to take a picture of all these books from my library, but, I don't.
While I agree with you that the "social contract" is an important idea, I don't think it unifies all atheists and even if it did, it does not help too much in discussing the politics of atheism.Are you suggesting that all atheists stand for the "social contract." Is there a voice for all atheists who speaks for you? Or do some atheists believe in different things?
Right now I think atheists are an amorphous, undefined group. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, it just makes it tougher to discuss atheism in a political context.
The social contract is the basis of any belief system religious or secular because the question at the heart of every society is how much of personal liberty is the individual willing to surrender in order to have a stable environment in which to live.
The concept of the tabula rasa allows for the individual to formulate a system of beliefs based upon experience and perception. Obviously this can include religious and secular experience. The horror of religion to me is the notion that any one teaching has the more perfect path to salvation and since is the true word of god all non believers are apostates. From this notion of moral superiority flows the crusades, the inquisition, jihad , the second intifadah, the list is endless.
Locke, in his
"Letters Concerning Toleration (1689–92) in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance. Three arguments are central: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.[15] "Wikipedia
These are the ideas that heavily influenced the writers of the constitution and any belief system that strays from these principles follows a path of tyranny such is the horror of religion.
Some atheists prefer to look at social rules, ethics, morals etc in an evolutionary or Darwinian sense, suggesting that for instance alturism, or obeying societal norms, has a survival value, etc, which is not at all shaped by social contract ideas.
And even if the majority of atheists agreed to the centrality of the social contract, if they varied greatly on the "terms" of said contract you would still have trouble generalizing.
Why not? With certain exceptions like SB dropping in to try and level personal attacks without really contributing anything, it has been a pretty civil discussion.okay let's hope this thread won't go 15 pages.... :hand:
