[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51117400]so you hold that people can be a christian, while violating the central tenant of Christianity?[/QUOTE]
Of course. It has always been like that in reality. You take a far too literal look at Christianity rather than a sociological one. I don't care whether Christianity is literally true, and I don't think it matters if some people within Christianity don't think it is literally true. This is all irrelevant.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117391]No. Religion has never relied upon everyone believing in the literal existence of God. Walk into any Church and you will find a sizable percentage do not literally think God exists if you make them answer honestly. The same applies to the Clergy as well. However, it does rely upon a reasonable amount of people actually believing in God.
Views of individuals are not the same as view as people in general. I think that plenty of people will continue following Christian ethics for a long time despite not being personally religious. However, I think the likelihood is that over a longer timeframe we will see a decline in this and more potential for nihilism.[/QUOTE]
Going to church when you don't believe in God doesn't make you religious.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117405]Of course. It has always been like that in reality.[/QUOTE]
can you be a cyclist without riding a bike?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51117413]can you be a cyclist without riding a bike?[/QUOTE]
Cycling is not like religion, is it.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117391]
Views of individuals are not the same as view as people in general. I think that plenty of people will continue following Christian ethics for a long time despite not being personally religious. However, I think the likelihood is that over a longer timeframe we will see a decline in this and more potential for nihilism.[/QUOTE]
Well i guess the difference between us is that I actually have faith in humanity.
[editline]27th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117422]Cycling is not like religion, is it.[/QUOTE]
Its a clear analogy, stop being obtuse.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117405]Of course. It has always been like that in reality. You take a far too literal look at Christianity rather than a sociological one. I don't care whether Christianity is literally true, and I don't think it matters if some people within Christianity don't think it is literally true. This is all irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
What christian ethics do you even actually follow?
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117422]Cycling is not like religion, is it.[/QUOTE]
Oh God
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117422]Cycling is not like religion, is it.[/QUOTE]
Simple enough concept.
You're telling me that someone, who does not ride a bike, can be a cyclist, a person who rides a bike
or are you saying that a christian is defined as being something other than someone who believes in the teachings of christianity?
Good. Religion is vestigial, and less superstition is always a good thing.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117405]Of course. It has always been like that in reality. You take a far too literal look at Christianity rather than a sociological one. I don't care whether Christianity is literally true, and I don't think it matters if some people within Christianity don't think it is literally true. This is all irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
Religion is based upon belief. If there is no belief, there is no religion. You can't be christian and [B]not[/B] believe in god (and specifically, the christian god, obviously).
Religion for the most part is a forming basis for community and nation-states as it allows for groups of people with similar ideas, concepts, and culture to gather under one flag. Humanity will never be free of superstitions and spooks, and it's foolish to try and demand people to do otherwise.
For myself, I do sometimes wish that Christendom would unite under one flag again, and be willing to defend itself against those which attack our own. Call it what you will, but it sickens me greatly as a born Roman Catholic, that we left our own to be slaughtered by the likes of the Islamic State, and didn't even do anything.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51117574]Religion for the most part is a forming basis for community and nation-states as it allows for groups of people with similar ideas, concepts, and culture to gather under one flag. Humanity will never be free of superstitions and spooks, and it's foolish to try and demand people to do otherwise.
For myself, I do sometimes wish that Christendom would unite under one flag again, and be willing to defend itself against those which attack our own. Call it what you will, but it sickens me greatly as a born Roman Catholic, that we left our own to be slaughtered by the likes of the Islamic State, and didn't even do anything.[/QUOTE]
Religious Government is terrible no matter the faith, a Christian State would be just as bad as the Islamic State. Humanity will never be free of superstition, but like with all the bad aspects of humanity, we can strive to minimize and contain its influence.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51117574]Religion for the most part is a forming basis for community and nation-states as it allows for groups of people with similar ideas, concepts, and culture to gather under one flag. Humanity will never be free of superstitions and spooks, and it's foolish to try and demand people to do otherwise.
For myself, I do sometimes wish that Christendom would unite under one flag again, and be willing to defend itself against those which attack our own. Call it what you will, but it sickens me greatly as a born Roman Catholic, that we left our own to be slaughtered by the likes of the Islamic State, and didn't even do anything.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that the vast majority of people who get killed by isis are muslims right
[editline]27th September 2016[/editline]
Like you're advocating a holy war to fight a holy war. This isnt the 1300s
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51117467]Simple enough concept.
You're telling me that someone, who does not ride a bike, can be a cyclist, a person who rides a bike
or are you saying that a christian is defined as being something other than someone who believes in the teachings of christianity?[/QUOTE]
religion is personal and about self identification. there are some actions that are associated with religions, but they are not the religion in itself. with cycling, you have to perform the act of cycling to be considered a cyclist. with religion, you have to believe, which is a more ambiguous term, it isn't as binary as cycling.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51117682]religion is personal and about self identification. there are some actions that are associated with religions, but they are not the religion in itself. with cycling, you have to perform the act of cycling to be considered a cyclist. with religion, you have to believe, which is a more ambiguous term, it isn't as binary as cycling.[/QUOTE]
what do you believe in if you're a christian?
i mean, my opinion here is that you have about as much justification in defining christian to not include a belief in god as I do in defining a cyclist as someone who doesn't cycle
i understand that religion is personal, but if you're not going to use the word in it's most commonly used meaning, then i'll consider it in the same manner as someone who defines cyclist as someone who doesn't cycle
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;51117730]what do you believe in if you're a christian?[/QUOTE]
you can believe in the messages behind the teachings in the bible, you can believe in the unity of community promoted by those teachings, you can believe in the system of morals presented by the bible, you can believe christ was an amazing man whose message of peace is worthy of spreading. yes, you also likely believe in the christian god, but it isn't necessarily a requisite to consider yourself a christian
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51117771]you can believe in the messages behind the teachings in the bible, you can believe in the unity of community promoted by those teachings, you can believe in the system of morals presented by the bible, you can believe christ was an amazing man whose message of peace is worthy of spreading. yes, you also likely believe in the christian god, but it isn't necessarily a requisite to consider yourself a christian[/QUOTE]
I get what you're saying, but as far as I'm concerned, you're describing someone who wears all the cycling clothes, wears cycling glasses, goes to cycling events, watches cycling on the television and likes the idea of cycling, but doesn't ride a bike
I would be no more inclined to call that person a cyclist, than I would be to call someone who doesn't believe in the Christian God, a Christian.
You can say it's self-identification, which I'll accept, but self-identification is to concede that you're rendering the term outside of commonly accepted meaning
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117023]Western society is built upon Christian ethics and morals. Of course, liberalism (though this itself was also strongly influenced by [URL="http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/inventing-the-individual-by-larry-siedentop/"]Christianity[/URL]) and the Classics (though the influence of the [URL="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity"]Classics[/URL] is massively overstated and Christianity was infinitely more important in shaping our society). This is what allowed our societies to become tolerant, prosperous and simply better in every concievable way compared to non-Christian societies. Of course, there are many other aspects to this story, but denying the influence of Christianity is foolish.
Currently, we are free riding off of Christian morals and ethics. People like to pretend their ethics are secular, or based off of something else, but in reality most of use the Christian ethics we were brought up with. Of course, it is possible to come up with alternative secular moral systems, but they are both inferior systems and require far too much complicated Philosophy to be adopted by the masses. One example of the triumph of Christian ethics is in the abolition of slavery. If we look back, it was not liberals, or classicists, or anyone like that calling for abolition. It was people who we would call religious fanatics (particularly British Quakers and Methodists). This, of course, is just one of many potential examples.
We may see some short-term gains from our secularism - in particular, the decline of intolerance of sexual minorities, and perhaps some reduction in the blocking of scientific progress - though this is very much overblown once we move past Galileo. But ultimately, Christian ethics, which our society is built upon and in many ways are tremendously helpful in allowing liberalism (in the classical sense) to exist, do rely upon the continuation of religion in some form. Secularism will not bring us to the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoN1fhEMhvU"]sunlit uplands[/URL]. I certainly don't view it as a good thing, and when being more pessimistic I think it is a very bad thing in the long-run if we really do need real Christianity to maintain Christian ethics.[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously trying to argue that without religion we can't have, or even wouldn't have had forward thinking idealists. That without believing some special sod was nailed to two planks of wood in 30~ AD, from today human ability to reason and invent with new ideas is limited
Because that is the biggest load of shit I've ever read
I mean Cloak Raider did a pretty thorough job of destroying this post already but wow
I think a lot of churchgoers, attend because they like the company of like minded people who they feel are good people morally and ethically, not necessarily because they want to praise the Lord, week in week out.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;51116947]Religions help create peoples morals and ideals more than anything else.[/QUOTE]
Correlation != causation
its likely that in a society without religion similar rules and social norms would have emerged.
Many of the rules in religion probably came from culture to religion rather than visa versa. Stuff like repayment of debt and being in debt being a sin. No way people are going to be like "ahhh ye its fine not to pay debts" then some god guy comes along and says "no that bad".
So I argue that those ideals and morals would have been come to anyway with religion being just used to propagate, reinforce or validate those ideals.
Furthermore those religious ethics (specifically regarding "christian ethics") were generally reached globally. Most societies ended up being monoandrous as a general rule, most societies saw killing and usury as wrong, most societies went through cycles of accepting and rejecting homosexuality, most societies were patriarchal, most religions had man in some eternal unpayable debt to something society/god/world/universe/ancestors/mother, most societies see suicide (at least in younger people) as a terrible thing, most societies see cheating (particularly a woman on her dear husband) as a bad thing. These are conclusions reached by most societies/religions/cultures. I had some theory that like with genetics were its survivals of the fittest/most adaptable with societies/culture and social norms its survival of the most stable system, people/religions/cultures might have tried running some system where cheating on your partner is ok but its less stable because it causes issues with the whole inheritance thing.
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;51117832]Are you seriously trying to argue that without religion we can't have, or even wouldn't have had forward thinking idealists. That without believing some special sod was nailed to two planks of wood in 30~ AD, from today human ability to reason and invent with new ideas is limited
Because that is the biggest load of shit I've ever read
I mean Cloak Raider did a pretty thorough job of destroying this post already but wow[/QUOTE]
i think he is more arguing that people should recognize the roots of where their morality comes from. we likely could have come up with similar ways of thinking as we do today without christianity but what-ifs don't really matter.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;51117168]Huh?
You posted in a thread about a country losing it's religion then claim as your defence when called out.
Do you understand what secular means?[/QUOTE]
After looking secular up a bit in a few dictionaies, i got definitions about moving away from religion and toward atheism. I was trying to coney that it is good to modernize values, such as those in religion, and go away of the more extreme aspects of those religions.
I will admit that I could have used a better and morr precise term, however.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51117964]i think he is more arguing that people should recognize the roots of where their morality comes from. we likely could have come up with similar ways of thinking as we do today without christianity but what-ifs don't really matter.[/QUOTE]
recognizing where your morality originates from does not equate to
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117023]I certainly don't view it as a good thing, and when being more pessimistic I think it is a very bad thing in the long-run if we really do need real Christianity to maintain Christian ethics.[/QUOTE]
i can recognise that the mag lev has it's origins in the steam train, but that doesn't mean i need to lament that we're moving away from boiling water
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51117946]Correlation != causation
its likely that in a society without religion similar rules and social norms would have emerged.
Many of the rules in religion probably came from culture to religion rather than visa versa. Stuff like repayment of debt and being in debt being a sin. No way people are going to be like "ahhh ye its fine not to pay debts" then some god guy comes along and says "no that bad".
So I argue that those ideals and morals would have been come to anyway with religion being just used to propagate, reinforce or validate those ideals.[/QUOTE]
It's difficult to convincingly argue what might have been had something not existed for over 2k years though.
Primary and secondary school educations in the UK were for many years based on religious morals and ethics with assembly every morning and singing hymns etc which would also have had some kind of influence on people with no real religious background.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;51118039]It's difficult to convincingly argue what might have been had something not existed for over 2k years though.
Primary and secondary school educations in the UK were for many years based on religious morals and ethics with assembly every morning and singing hymns etc which would also have had some kind of influence on people with no real religious background.[/QUOTE]
Not at all. We know the teachings of Confucius and Zoroaster, we know the rules of Judaism which is way older on which christian morality is loosly based which in turn is based on the stuff below.
We know the Code of Hammurabi we know the middle assyrian law codes (over 3000 years old and origin of the veil as far as we know though it was likely practiced prior to being codified). They all say roughly the same thing. Patriarchy, no cheating on husband, debt is bad, be honest, dont kill ur fellow man, you're in debt to god/universe/mother, in many cases and cultures humility is also looked upon as a good trait as is charity.
A load of the same conclusions were reached all over the world, granted during the Bronze age around the time of the collapse the world was fairly well connection and globalised so its possible those values were discovered in 1 place and spread.
However!!!!
The aborigines in Australia have been near totally isolated for 10000s of years and they reached very similar conclusions.
Aztecs (another group isolated from the old world) also had a god to punish adulterers Tlazolteotl and while I can't find any mention of debt being considered a bad thing to the Aztecs their human sacrifices sought to repay a debt to gods which implies debts were something which needed to be paid and that they also had the concept of an infinate and unpayable debt to their gods (sacrifice is payment of the interest for to pay the principle would mean you are an equal to the gods/the universe which would be unthinkable)
Its human behavior.
I added some more stuff to my original post which I'll add here partly because it seems relevant and partly because my narcissism makes me think everyone wants to read it twice.
[QUOTE=taken from other post;51117946]
Furthermore those religious ethics (specifically regarding "christian ethics") were generally reached globally. Most societies ended up being monoandrous as a general rule, most societies saw killing and usury as wrong, most societies went through cycles of accepting and rejecting homosexuality, most societies were patriarchal, most religions had man in some eternal unpayable debt to something society/god/world/universe/ancestors/mother, most societies see suicide (at least in younger people) as a terrible thing, most societies see cheating (particularly a woman on her dear husband) as a bad thing. These are conclusions reached by most societies/religions/cultures. I had some theory that like with genetics were its survivals of the fittest/most adaptable with societies/culture and social norms its survival of the most stable system, people/religions/cultures might have tried running some system where cheating on your partner is ok but its less stable because it causes issues with the whole inheritance thing.[/QUOTE]
I stand by my point that those ethics woulda been reached without god(s) being dragged into it.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51118166]Not at all. We know the teachings of Confucius and Zoroaster, we know the rules of Judaism which is way older on which christian morality is loosly based which in turn is based on the stuff below.
We know the Code of Hammurabi we know the middle assyrian law codes (over 3000 years old and origin of the veil as far as we know though it was likely practiced prior to being codified). They all say roughly the same thing. Patriarchy, no cheating on husband, debt is bad, be honest, dont kill ur fellow man, you're in debt to god/universe/mother, in many cases and cultures humility is also looked upon as a good trait as is charity.
A load of the same conclusions were reached all over the world, granted during the Bronze age around the time of the collapse the world was fairly well connection and globalised so its possible those values were discovered in 1 place and spread.
However!!!!
The aborigines in Australia have been near totally isolated for 10000s of years and they reached very similar conclusions.
Aztecs (another group isolated from the old world) also had a god to punish adulterers Tlazolteotl and while I can't find any mention of debt being considered a bad thing to the Aztecs their human sacrifices sought to repay a debt to gods which implies debts were something which needed to be paid and that they also had the concept of an infinate and unpayable debt to their gods (sacrifice is payment of the interest for to pay the principle would mean you are an equal to the gods/the universe which would be unthinkable)
Its human behavior.
I added some more stuff to my original post which I'll add here partly because it seems relevant and partly because my narcissism makes me think everyone wants to read it twice.
I stand by my point that those ethics woulda been reached without god(s) being dragged into it.[/QUOTE]
So second nature, built-in?
I think these numbers are going to raise to about 90% in the next 50 years, out of the 200 people in my year through secondary school, only 3 or 4 were religious church goers. In my 26 years living in scotland, I have only met around 10ish people that I've discovered believe in God.
There's also a culture here of people who say they are catholic etc just because their family are, with absolutely 0 belief in God.
It's not just dying, it's pretty much dead once our parents are.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51117023]Western society is built upon Christian ethics and morals. Of course, liberalism (though this itself was also strongly influenced by [URL="http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/inventing-the-individual-by-larry-siedentop/"]Christianity[/URL]) and the Classics (though the influence of the [URL="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/religion/2016/09/tom-holland-why-i-was-wrong-about-christianity"]Classics[/URL] is massively overstated and Christianity was infinitely more important in shaping our society). This is what allowed our societies to become tolerant, prosperous and simply better in every concievable way compared to non-Christian societies. Of course, there are many other aspects to this story, but denying the influence of Christianity is foolish.
Currently, we are free riding off of Christian morals and ethics. People like to pretend their ethics are secular, or based off of something else, but in reality most of use the Christian ethics we were brought up with. Of course, it is possible to come up with alternative secular moral systems, but they are both inferior systems and require far too much complicated Philosophy to be adopted by the masses. One example of the triumph of Christian ethics is in the abolition of slavery. If we look back, it was not liberals, or classicists, or anyone like that calling for abolition. It was people who we would call religious fanatics (particularly British Quakers and Methodists). This, of course, is just one of many potential examples.
We may see some short-term gains from our secularism - in particular, the decline of intolerance of sexual minorities, and perhaps some reduction in the blocking of scientific progress - though this is very much overblown once we move past Galileo. But ultimately, Christian ethics, which our society is built upon and in many ways are tremendously helpful in allowing liberalism (in the classical sense) to exist, do rely upon the continuation of religion in some form. Secularism will not bring us to the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoN1fhEMhvU"]sunlit uplands[/URL]. I certainly don't view it as a good thing, and when being more pessimistic I think it is a very bad thing in the long-run if we really do need real Christianity to maintain Christian ethics.[/QUOTE]
Religion doesn't help develop morality but it can help enforce it.
Oh yeah? you think you can commit suicide to escape your shitty life. Well... uhh there a place! yeah! worse than where you are! and its got fire and red guys with pitchforks! Yeah if you commit suicide then it will be worse for you!
It also helps gather wealth and make people work for you. Buddhists used it to get loadsmuni, Mesopotamians based their proto-socialist societies around temple warehouses and christianity... we shall conquer the new world, sell 11 year old girls as sex slaves, enslave people so badly they maim their kids to escape, burn cities to the ground, kill brown people, torture people for their beliefs, sack our own holy cities... in the name of god! Deus Vult!
And you're right about the religion makes it easier for the masses to accept morality its makes it nice and simple and people like simple. If you do bad you're bad and god will punish you for the rest of eternity.
I absolutely thing liberalism and those good morals coulda been reached without a bunch of popes, priests, preachers and -snip-
[editline]27th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;51118185]So second nature, built-in?[/QUOTE]
I dare say so. I have no proof though other than that we reached the same conclusions everywhere.
My only other thought, as alluded to in the snippet, is that other types were tried and either failed by luck or were out competed.
Imagine a society where suicide is ok vs a society where suicide is wrong. Its obvious which would win.
Likewise for
pay your debt vs dont bother paying debt (nobody trusts anybody and the lack of sharing stops stuff getting done)
dont cheat on husband vs cheat on husband (who inherits what?? is that even my kid?)
be honest vs dont be honest (trust again)
in debt to god vs not in debt to god (religion and the state associated tell you what to do and need that debt to leverage you, without the debt you have no obligation to do anything)
dont kill vs feel free to kill (dothraki style)
charity vs no charity (despite what conservatives tell you sometimes people need charity to get by mitigates the impact of random misfortune)
stratified society vs equal society (when settled, division of labour ie you work fields while I eat grapes and talk about god, people tend to try to rise up and get more than their fellow man, everyone wants to be different and everyone wants at least what the other person has)
patriarchy... tricky part. I have my own theory which I will share with you to rip it apart.
[sp]I believe for people to rise up (see stratification) others need to be put down, it is zero sum to some degree. (being a socialist I think this should be minimised) that putting down needs to be institutionalized through sexism or a caste system. If men are "better" than women then it makes hierarchy clear, man above woman (being a feminist I think this should be minimised) it makes it clear who inherits what, who makes the decisions, who makes the rules. I believe that in equal situations a tribe which have a clear hierarchy wins vs a tribe with a none clear hierarchy. Male > female trumped Female > male because I believe a male in a powerful position can have more offspring in a given time period than a female in a powerful position and often power, like wealth or status was inherited to some degree and in some way. Don't wanna go on about this since I don't really have well formed views yet since I didn't do a degree in women studies or something. If you wish to discuss my fascinating and wonderful theory pm me or something.[/sp]
So yeah I say the most stable systems survived through a kind of "survival of the fittest" thing. Maybe its not in our nature but we certainly seemed to have done the same things everywhere, I also believe this might provide explanation for where morals come from without a god -snip-
edit: removed some silly militant atheist stuff.#
edit2 : I also think making and believing in religions is natural human behaviour. While I think religions are bs they are useful for making people follow rules and helping spread your culture.
I think religion in terms of personal belief, theism, and community building can be a good thing. Psychologically it can help people cope, and can form communities and build relationships. It's not for me, but I can see how it helps people.
"There are no atheists in foxholes," while a broad statement, is a good reflection of humanity's fear of death. When I was at hospice (visiting, not dying), a lot of the people there who are dying are very religious, and the nurses comfort the sick with religious sentiments. "God has a plan," "you're going to a better place," "you'll see your family and loved ones again," "eternal paradise, free from pain" are all beliefs that make dying easier to cope with, both for the sick and those who bear witness to the dying.
For an atheist, you get one life, then game over. There's no afterlife, no final judgement, just total nothingness. You cease to exist. That fear of death brings along regrets, regret over what has not been accomplished or experienced, or what has been left behind, things that need to be done, but are too late to do. Regret, despair, sadness; death is the strongest, most potent fear, and living without that fear is a much easier existence for people. Religion can help with that.
It's a terrible ordeal to overcome death and nothingness without taking cognitive shortcuts. As an atheist it has given me grief and depression over the years and the only way I can cope is to avoid thinking about it, because I can't just suddenly believe in something I don't think is true. Humans make meaning, we create reasons for why things are, we try to establish cause and effect, but when dealing with the inherently meaninglessness of life, without that safety net of an afterlife or loving god your life becomes so much more important, and regret becomes a stronger feeling. Life is short, any time you waste is time gone forever, and you don't want to die without experiencing everything you can.
So people over time becoming more secular is both a good and a bad thing. Good for the lack of reliance on organized religion to think for us, to tell us what's right and wrong, to force us to live a certain way, to divide us and enrage us, but also bad because it makes some people more isolated, lack purpose, and makes death a much more difficult situation to deal with. Ultimately this is just a change that is going to happen on a much larger scale as people become more educated, more exposed to other cultures via social media, college, etc., and start to question why they believe the things they do and how compatible those beliefs are with scientific truth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
