Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[heracleitos]

The problem is that we don't know particularly much about humanity before humans started writing.

Yes, agreed, and yet you said this:

Historically, there has always been a scripture at the core of moral theory.

In the context of the history of human morality, scriptures are late-comers to the party. Your thesis seems to be poorly-informed, as in the past, there was never (until recently) scripture "at the core of moral theory".

Yes, "historically" is limited here to around 4000 to 5000 years. We don't know much about how things were before that, besides the fact that they did not write it down.

[Pattern-chaser]

I just referred back to your OP.

It takes your knowledge of Abrahamic religions, and pretends to use it to attack atheism. Sadly, your OP is a bit of a polemic, that contains no cogent argument that I can see. Remind me: what is our constructive purpose here, in this topic?

[LuckyR]

each religious and non-religious individual decides for themselves what their moral code will be.

Religious individuals join a large consensus with other religious individuals concerning morality. Atheists obviously do not. If there are five atheists sitting around the table, you will hear twelve different views on morality, depending on whether you ask in the morning or in the afternoon. Such lack of consensus about what is right and what is wrong can easily turn into a serious problem, especially in contractual situations such as but not limited to marriage.

many if not most of the moral code of atheists overlap with religious teachings.

They somehow overlap ... for now.

The situation amongst atheists is in continuous degeneration. Example:

Sex-positivity is "an attitude towards human sexuality that regards all consensual sexual activities as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable, encouraging sexual pleasure and experimentation."

Even though not all sexual activity will lead to children, the overwhelming majority of children are produced through sexual activity. That is why sexual activity is a regulated behavior and not just a matter of "pleasurable experimentation". There are clearly also issues of responsibility and accountability.

The real problem is not that some people engage in frivolous pastimes such as "pleasurable experimentation". In religion, sex without having at least some contract with the counterpart is merely considered a sin. The real problem is that these people publicly advocate that behavior to others. They actually want more people to get into all kinds of trouble. These advocates of sex-positivity are actively fuelling the growth of the problem.

Religion, on the other hand, tries to convince as many people as possible to establish long-term arrangements that can handle situations in which they may also be able to raise children. The other ones will still routinely engage in casual sex, but the benefit of religious advocacy is that at least not everybody will be doing that.

Upon what do you base your opinions on the inner workings in the minds of atheists?

Are you seriously attempting to promote the idea that sexual behavior of the religious and the non-religious is quantitatively different?

The reality that has somehow escaped your attention is that atheists are not adrift in the cosmos without landmarks to base their typically mundane moral codes upon. Since parenting/upbringing and society/culture influence personal views on morality more than organized religious teachings, an atheist lacking such a tertiary influence isn't really missing out on much.

[heracleitos]

I just referred back to your OP.

It takes your knowledge of Abrahamic religions, and pretends to use it to attack atheism. Sadly, your OP is a bit of a polemic, that contains no cogent argument that I can see. Remind me: what is our constructive purpose here, in this topic?

I draw the same conclusion as in Nassim Taleb's "The most intolerant wins. Dictatorship of a small minority."
A religion needs to be highly intolerant concerning alterations to its scriptures and to the resulting moral theory.
In fact, Jesus had already pointed that out in his Sermon on the Mount while he was still in charge of the Congreggration of the Poor.

[Gee]

Upon what do you base your opinions on the inner workings in the minds of atheists?

Are you seriously attempting to promote the idea that sexual behavior of the religious and the non-religious is quantitatively different?

The reality that has somehow escaped your attention is that atheists are not adrift in the cosmos without landmarks to base their typically mundane moral codes upon. Since parenting/upbringing and society/culture influence personal views on morality more than organized religious teachings, an atheist lacking such a tertiary influence isn't really missing out on much.

Well, my thought is that the 1960's saw the debates that brought Darwinism into the public school system, it also saw a serious reduction in the Christian faiths, and the sexual revolution. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Gee

[Gee]

Why it works for Judaism and Islam, but not for Christianity can be summed up with a few words: Separation of church and state.

With Islam there is no separation as the church and government are the same. I am not as sure about Judaism, but I doubt that the secular law is ever given priority over the religious law; this is not true for Christianity.

When people say, "separation of church and state" they think that it means to each his own and never shall the two overlap, but this is not the truth. What it really means is that church law shall never have power over secular law, but the reverse is not protected. Atheists have used secular law to install evolution into the public schools, to remove prayer from the public schools, to remove Christmas decorations from public buildings, and done everything they could to make sure that "God" stays where He belongs hidden in some corner of a person's private bedroom -- like something shameful. People can deny this until the end of time, but I certainly won't believe the denials as there is too much evidence.

Early Christianity was a power struggle between the Romans, the Jews, and the early Christians; it remains a power struggle today. A thousand years ago, the Church was winning the struggle and corrupted itself and secular government. To rectify this, separation of church and state was legislated in the hope of correcting the problem, but it really just changed the problem. Right now, secular law is corrupting itself.

Gee

[Sy Borg]

There is no need for westerners to follow Constantine and his hallucinations, which was the basis for the foundation of Roman Catholic Church.

Constantine adopted Christianity after hallucinating at a time when Rome was becoming ever more crazed and dysfunctional from long term use of lead piping.

[LuckyR]

Upon what do you base your opinions on the inner workings in the minds of atheists?

Are you seriously attempting to promote the idea that sexual behavior of the religious and the non-religious is quantitatively different?

The reality that has somehow escaped your attention is that atheists are not adrift in the cosmos without landmarks to base their typically mundane moral codes upon. Since parenting/upbringing and society/culture influence personal views on morality more than organized religious teachings, an atheist lacking such a tertiary influence isn't really missing out on much.

Well, my thought is that the 1960's saw the debates that brought Darwinism into the public school system, it also saw a serious reduction in the Christian faiths, and the sexual revolution. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Gee

So are you of the opinion that the 50s were a superior era to what has followed?

[paradox]

each religious and non-religious individual decides for themselves what their moral code will be.

If every individual decides for him self what their moral code will be then one may decide that killing is good.
But you now may be thinking that majority disagree with that, but is it really up to majority to decide what's good and what's bad?

There is no need for westerners to follow Constantine and his hallucinations, which was the basis for the foundation of Roman Catholic Church.

Constantine adopted Christianity after hallucinating at a time when Rome was becoming ever more crazed and dysfunctional from long term use of lead piping.

How do you know he was hallucinating?
There is absolutely no way of knowing whether he was hallucinating or not.

[LuckyR]

each religious and non-religious individual decides for themselves what their moral code will be.

If every individual decides for him self what their moral code will be then one may decide that killing is good.
But you now may be thinking that majority disagree with that, but is it really up to majority to decide what's good and what's bad?

Whoa there fella, you're conflating personal moral codes (which murderers likely are ok with murder) and societal ethical standards (where murder is universally disapproved).

[Pattern-chaser]

I just referred back to your OP.

It takes your knowledge of Abrahamic religions, and pretends to use it to attack atheism. Sadly, your OP is a bit of a polemic, that contains no cogent argument that I can see. Remind me: what is our constructive purpose here, in this topic?

I draw the same conclusion as in Nassim Taleb's "The most intolerant wins. Dictatorship of a small minority."
A religion needs to be highly intolerant concerning alterations to its scriptures and to the resulting moral theory.
In fact, Jesus had already pointed that out in his Sermon on the Mount while he was still in charge of the Congreggration of the Poor.

OK, but remind me: what is our constructive purpose here, in this topic?

What is it that you have brought us together to discuss?

[heracleitos]

What is it that you have brought us together to discuss?

I think that the Christian clergy deliberately chooses to lose the debate against the atheists rather than firming up their stance on the immutability of the scriptures and the moral theory that these scriptures construct. That explains why the atheists have pretty much won already. Christianity is almost surely doomed. But then again, it also explains why the same atheists fail to make a dent in the resolve of Judaism and Islam.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think that the Christian clergy deliberately chooses to lose the debate against the atheists...

This makes me wonder why you look at it that way? Why is a comparison of different spiritual beliefs a conflict, to be won or lost? Why not a serious and interesting contrast of two (or more) different ways of looking at spiritual things?

I cannot believe that 'the atheists' are out to destroy Christianity, or any other religion. Atheists have their own way of looking at spiritual matters.

Some are passive atheists, who really don't care about Christianity, or even God. They find the whole thing pointless, so they ignore it. These atheists are not what you describe. They don't care enough to come here and set you straight, because they are truly indifferent to religion and believers.

Other atheists are more confrontational, like Richard Dawkins. They do set out to demean, debase, and destroy 'religion'. Such people are just as intolerant as religious extremists; all such extremists are worth avoiding and ignoring, IMO. YMMV.

[paradox]

I cannot believe that 'the atheists' are out to destroy Christianity, or any other religion. Atheists have their own way of looking at spiritual matters.

Some are passive atheists, who really don't care about Christianity, or even God. They find the whole thing pointless, so they ignore it. These atheists are not what you describe. They don't care enough to come here and set you straight, because they are truly indifferent to religion and believers.

Other atheists are more confrontational, like Richard Dawkins. They do set out to demean, debase, and destroy 'religion'. Such people are just as intolerant as religious extremists; all such extremists are worth avoiding and ignoring, IMO. YMMV.

Just like there are extremists within Islam who spread the word of God by sword, there are extremists within other religious groups including atheists.
Among atheists there are the so called "new atheists" who preach about nonexistence of God, for them it's not enough that there is no God they go 1 step further and attack by using various tools:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

Warmly recommended video to see what it means to be "new atheist":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6MrktRKfJU

[heracleitos]

This makes me wonder why you look at it that way? Why is a comparison of different spiritual beliefs a conflict, to be won or lost? Why not a serious and interesting contrast of two (or more) different ways of looking at spiritual things? I cannot believe that 'the atheists' are out to destroy Christianity, or any other religion. Atheists have their own way of looking at spiritual matters.

The transcendental part of religion has spiritual benefits for the believer. I won't argue that an alternative atheist transcendental replacement for liturgy and prayer is impossible, because it is not about a rational theory.

Concerning the morality part of religion, it certainly does get thrown out of the window when people abandon the religion of which it is part. Since atheism does not propose an alternative, the lack of self-discipline that discarding the morality leads to, often ends up being damaging to the newly atheist individual. For example, sexual promiscuity is a lack of self-discipline. It often has damaging consequences for the individual but also for the society at large, as it may badly damage family and kinship structure.

Other atheists are more confrontational, like Richard Dawkins. They do set out to demean, debase, and destroy 'religion'. Such people are just as intolerant as religious extremists; all such extremists are worth avoiding and ignoring, IMO. YMMV.

It is the most vocal and the most confrontational individuals who dominate the debate.

Dawkins never proposed an alternative spirituality. Dawkins also did not propose how to maintain moral self-discipline. He merely criticized. Hence, he was ultimately damaging to his followers.