If you so claim this, then what does he look like? How deep is his voice? What does he wear?
Ok, I think I grok.
Here the thing, **kanicbird **… the easy bit first. No I don’t consider my relationship with my still living parents a religion; I consider it a relationship. Because they are alive, as am I.
Now then, I know that you claim to talk to Yahweh, who you call Daddy, and that Jesus plays tiddly-winks with you or something and that angels help you get out of DUI’s, etc.
I don’t believe you for a second. Just so we’re clear on that. I’m not going to ask for cites. **Czarcasm **has more fortitude for that sort of thing than I do.
I’m betting three more times won’t help.
The whole thread reminds me of the things you sometimes hear people say about the Ten Commandments - “they’re good rules to live by even if you’re not religious!” A couple of them are, but several of them are explicitly religious and have no meaning or value to a non-religious person. You can’t pretend the whole thing is not religious (or in the case of the OP’s argument, that it isn’t a religion) when the whole foundation of it is unquestionably religious.
My dad puts that argument forth all the time - that the Ten Commandments, whether you’re running a religious society or not, are the strongest foundations of a decent civilization. He has yet to explain how the “false idols” bit plays into that.
Yeah, let’s see:
-
No other gods before YHWH. Gonna go with no.
-
False idols. Still no relevance.
-
Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain. Um… I guess if you want to stretch this to some sort of “don’t use profanity” it could be decent. But mostly no.
-
Remember the Sabbath, keep it holy. Again, I guess you could argue that allowing a day off regularly is a good thing to keep a society sane, but any finer details sort of fall apart.
-
Honor your father and mother. It’s a good foundation for society, but there’s too many exceptions (abusive parents, etc) for it to really be meaningful in any sense that you’d base a society off the rule.
-
No murder. That’s good.
-
No adultery. Cheating is bad, but again, definitions can be strange. The technical definition of adultery would punish married people who consent to have extramarital sex. I’ll call this one “kind of/maybe.”
-
No theft. That’s good.
-
Don’t lie. A good moral code, but white lies and lies by omission can in some cases be more useful to society than the truth. Other than special cases like perjury, I’m not sure it’s really a good foundation for a society. I’ll call it “maybe”
-
Do not covet. Er… no. Coveting and jealousy can be bad, but how would you even enforce this legally. Even if you’re saying morally, I think most products and business worth a damn came from people wanting money, fame, etc.
So we have half of them being flat no’s, with four of those being inextricably religious. Two definites, and three that are only good when subjected to a bunch of special cases and restrictions.
I wouldn’t call it an amazing foundation for a society.
I know, Jragon, but the conversations are uniformly fruitless. Bear in mind, also, that my dad voted for legalization in MA and complains about living in a “Puritan” state just as much as I do. Hence the problem.
I can love Gandhi without being an adherent to some religion that was set up 400 years later by the leaders of organization that was created long after Gandhi was killed. I can love what he taught and what he stood for without believing everything that is said in his name.
Of course noone is going to claim a personal relationship with Gandhi and the “personal relationship with Jesus” is a religious belief but you don’t have to buy into any organized religion for that.
I think we are defining things a little differently.
You seem to be saying that any spiritual beliefs are religious.
[QUOTE=Blaster Master]
So while I don’t really like the label of religion because of the connotations it carries about such rigid beliefs and ritual and all, even if one takes a more relationship approach to Christianity, it’s still a religion because it’s still fits the any reasonable definition of religion.
[/QUOTE]
What I was speaking of, and maybe we should be talking about “Organized Religion,” is the organizational power structure that Jesus spoke against in Judaism, and the one that built up later in “Christianity,” that I’m sure He wouldn’t approve of. (Matt 15:9 in vain do they worhip me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.)
That power structure where you were beholden to the priests for your spiritual expression. etc.
That doesn’t mean forgoing discussion with other people, being some sort of spiritual hermit. That often leads to weird, unsupportable beliefs too. We have an organization, and some people are teachers, but they do not mediate my relationship with God. They give direction, but I search the scriptures to see if those things are so. I get to have the scriptures to read. The preist doesn’t just dictate to me what to believe as was often done even in “Christianity.”
Not necessarily. They could just be so much bullshit.
I don’t define astrology or the belief in ghosts, for example, as religious, but they are in the same boat. They are beliefs dependent upon nothing but belief.
Yeah, let’s see:
…9. Don’t lie. A good moral code, but white lies and lies by omission can in some cases be more useful to society than the truth. Other than special cases like perjury, I’m not sure it’s really a good foundation for a society. I’ll call it “maybe”…
…So we have half of them being flat no’s, with four of those being inextricably religious. Two definites, and three that are only good when subjected to a bunch of special cases and restrictions.
I wouldn’t call it an amazing foundation for a society.
[/QUOTE]
I highlighted #9 because you got it wrong. It’s do not bear false witness. i.e. Trying to get someone in trouble by lying. or trying to get someone out of legitimate trouble by lying. your “special case like perjury” is really more in the line of what it meant in the first place.
Now. What if we were to look at this not as the basis for a system of laws, but as what you quoted… “the strongest foundations of a decent civilization.” So, would it be a decent civilization if people, of their own free will, chose to follow 4 through 10?
The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. Having the day off was largely the finer details. We don’t want our employer dictating a 7 day work week and working us to death.
I would say that’s probably why it says “honor,” (respect,) rather than “obey blindly and let them abuse you.”
wanting more money, a better life, sure, to a point. But, this speaks of specifically desiring what belongs to someone else. Thinking you should have a right to what he owns.
It’s often a bad idea even where it’s agreed to. This one is still for the benefit of mankind. People get jealous, and get hurt, even when they thought they would be fine with it. And especially when they didn’t agree to it.
So… It still looks to me like those are largely the best basis of a decent civilization. Not as what we dictate of others, but what we demand of ourselves. The people in a decent civilization would overwhelmingly try to do these things.
This is from someone who believes that Israel was a national example and Christians are a personal example. That Israel had to dictate behavior for the purity of the nation as a whole, for the civility of the nation as a whole, and they couldn’t just have those who weren’t dedicated to the cause ruining it for everyone else. And a Christian’s personal duty to love your neighbour as yourself, (speaking of the last 7 commandments,) encompasses all that and more. Those are just the things you don’t do to others because it hurts them. there is so much more we can do to help and support others as well.
I think we would have a decent civilization if everyone did this. But I don’t think we would yet have decent citizens if all we did was this.
No this is incorrect.
The rest of my post was still directed at our conversation and the distinction between the relationship and the power structure. Does your silence mean you have no objection to my distinction?
And what you are claiming here is that I don’t find any value in following them. That I don’t find them verified on a daily basis. Because that would be something other than just belief. My scriptures say, (basically,) God says to do these things because they are for your benefit and the benefit of those around you. Then, when I do those things, i find they are to my benefit and the benefit of those around me. That lends credence to the beginning premise. Then, I find that my belief and faith in God helps me to better incorporate those things into myself as very aspects of my being. That too lends credence to my belief in God.
And not that it’s easy, or makes my life without difficulty, or gets me every material thing I want now. But, they certainly seem like traits that would be of benefit in a future “decent civilization,” as someone put it. And as long as I find a decent civilization something that I want.
But, If I didn’t believe in God, now would be all I would believe in. And then I could just pick whatever purposes suited my sensibilities, right? And no one could tell me that their purpose is better and I had to follow that. No one could tell me that a decent civilization was the goal.
And the only thing that mattered would be what I achieved here and now. And then, the right thing to do would be whatever achieved my purpose.
See, without something beyond this universe, the only purpose this universe supports is survival. And even though a large group doing the same thing is one means of surviving, the group has no call to say, “this is the way to do it, our way is best.” Because it has always been the case that it’s a small group with a new trait that suddenly becomes better adapted and out competes the others. So, no one has any call to tell anyone what their purpose should be. That unpopular trait might be the next evolutionary leap. The only judge is what works. Right and wrong are only words to describe whether or not what you are doing achieves your particular purpose. And you have no call to say that what someone else is doing is wrong, even if they are currently killing you and stealing your stuff, unless you just mean you see what evidence they are leaving behind and how this isn’t going to benefit them because they are totally going to get caught. But, the act of killing you? That could totally suit their purpose, and that’s all that matters, right?
But since I see that people get away with murder and theft and they are better off, and I still say, “that’s just wrong,” I find I believe there are universal moral principals that apply to everyone. And that means I believe in a universal purpose, and that means I have to believe in something that set that purpose, (because this universe didn’t. No atheist I’ve talked to yet has confirmed that survival is the purpose, but that’s the only purpose this universe has set. And those people getting away with murder would still be fulfilling that purpose.) So, I am inexorably led to a belief in God by a desire to believe in moral principles. And as I said before, practicing those principles confirms to me the purpose of life and the existence of God.
But to you it’s based on nothing but belief and there is no confirmation to be found.
(edit.) “I find your lack of faith disturbing.” Darth Vader
No this is incorrect.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s quite true. There’s no evidence about anything he said outside of the claims of Christianity (which were written by people who never knew him). Outside evidence can just barely say that he (or at least, someone the legend was based on) probably existed; not what he said.
Of course they can; a decent civilization is in everyone’s self interest.
It’s religion that cannot serve as a solid basis for morality or behavior, since it’s based on a wholly imaginary entity. God is just a myth, and therefore will “say” whatever you want him to say. If you base your morality or goals on “God” you can justify genocide just as easily as you can charity; all you are actually doing is labeling your whims & prejudices “God”. After all, that’s a central part of your argument; you claim to base your morality on “God”,* who just happens to agree with you*. Just as he always just happens to agree with the person claiming that we should follow “God’s” rules; very convenient that is.
Nonsense. The universe has whatever purpose we choose to give it. And the existence of something beyond this universe adds nothing. We can’t communicate with it, and even if “God” showed up it would be just as “purposeless” as us.
Your imaginary God, even if it existed has no more right or validity than we do when it comes to decreeing some kind of universal morality or purpose. If your god declares eating children to be moral, that doesn’t make it so.
Muslims mention him and even Jews recognize that he existed. They just disagree on the whole messiah/son of god thing..
And? That doesn’t mean they have any information about him besides what Christians have claimed. Especially in the case of Islam, which came around long after Christianity.
Information? I would say that all anyone has is guesses.
I believe that was exactly DT’s point there.
-XT
Yes. I don’t know for sure what he said; no one does. But given how distorted anything translated by oral tradition (especially by people with an agenda) can become I’d be very surprised if what he’s reputed to have said bears much resemblance at all to the reality.
Yeah, if we are talking about Jesus there is no direct evidence at all that he even existed, let alone direct writings…and the Muslim take is a couple of times removed from that. For that matter, the Koran/Quran wasn’t written when Muhammad was alive either, but instead pieced together from oral memorization from various parts into one book by a committee, so while we have pretty solid data that HE was a real person, the Koran is probably a distortion to one degree or another.
-XT
Not, a single comment or criticism of my analysis of the last 7 commandments, I see. you don’t seem to have a problem with those as the basis of a decent society.
Of course they can; a decent civilization is in everyone’s self interest.
[/QUOTE]
Still, as you say later, and as I mentioned already, everyone gets to pick their own purpose. And not everyone is going to pick what is in their self interest, (even if they know what that is.) And then an even greater number can be expected to have a purpose more along these lines: “it would be most beneficial for me if everyone else followed the rules and i was free to do what ever I wanted.” You may have been in a conversation or two with me on just that topic. Even thieves don’t want too many thieves around, it makes it harder for them and more likely they get stolen from. They want everyone off their guard. (But, then, some just want chaos. So, a decent civilization isn’t in their interests. It doesn’t suit their purpose…)
I can still remember the quaint depictions of beat cops who would take an apple from a vendors cart, or get a free meal at a diner. It used to be expected. Little bits of corruption that studies have shown people accept from those who are stopping larger scale corruption. People want to be in these positions of power. They want to be exempt. Studies have shown it’s quite easy for people to convince themselves that they should be exempt from certain rules. Here’s a comic take on that: http://www.cracked.com/article_18777_5-scientific-reasons-powerful-people-will-always-suck.html
First, that doesn’t matter at all, even if true. Here’s what I already said.
[QUOTE=ch4rl3s]
See, without something beyond this universe, the only purpose this universe supports is survival. And even though a large group doing the same thing is one means of surviving, the group has no call to say, “this is the way to do it, our way is best.” Because it has always been the case that it’s a small group with a new trait that suddenly becomes better adapted and out competes the others. So, no one has any call to tell anyone what their purpose should be. That unpopular trait might be the next evolutionary leap. The only judge is what works. Right and wrong are only words to describe whether or not what you are doing achieves your particular purpose. And you have no call to say that what someone else is doing is wrong, even if they are currently killing you and stealing your stuff, unless you just mean you see what evidence they are leaving behind and how this isn’t going to benefit them because they are totally going to get caught. But, the act of killing you? That could totally suit their purpose, and that’s all that matters, right?
[/QUOTE]
The most important thing is to fulfill the purpose you set for yourself. The second most important thing is to do that as effectively as possible, (unless part of your stated purpose is to half-ass it.) And whatever does that is the right thing to do. So… Lies don’t matter. The truth doesn’t matter. What matters is accomplishing your purpose. And if lies, falsehoods, self-deception, even murder best accomplish it. Then that is the right thing to do. It would be “immoral” not to. Morality has to be defined in terms of whether or not something fulfills the purpose. Think about what you have chosen as your purpose and priorities. Think about what fulfills that purpose. Think about what you believe is moral. I’m going to guess that they coincide.
(e.g. If your purpose is to … I don’t know, make a lot of money and live comfortably. And you put a priority on say, not hurting people. then what you call moral is going to involve those things that make you money without hurting people. But this is all totally subjective. A serial killer whose purpose is murder is going to find that moral. And, as I already showed, your view is no more valid than his. His one view is no less valid than a billion people with the same goal. Numbers don’t matter; what works is what matters. Evolution shows us that… Unless, there is a being who created the universe and set a purpose for it. If you believe in universal morality, things that are right or wrong regardless, then you evidence a belief in a creator.)
Except that the real Christians don’t do that. We are instructed to search the scriptures to see if every teaching is true. And we have had this conversation before.
People in power calling for genocides in the name of Christ were deliberately not letting their followers know what the bible actually says. I don’t choose my own purpose. I find things I don’t want to do. But I’m convinced I need to try to conform myself to that standard. It’s atheists who you admit get to say, “The universe has whatever purpose we choose to give it.” Whatever your whim is with no limits put on you.
If you’re just complaining that anyone can just make up whatever they want and call it a religion. I despise that, too. But, everyone gets to pick their own purpose, right? And fulfill it how they want. Why are you complaining that lying best fulfills their purpose? Lies don’t matter. What works is what matters. And I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the people who just made up religions were atheists in it for their own gain; (as evidenced by many who didn’t even try to live the life-style they espoused. to provide just one example.)
I don’t like that they set a bad example. that they misrepresent what the story of Jesus really says.
I don’t understand your objection though. Lies don’t matter. As I said, you have no real call to question their purpose or the means by which they accomplish it unless you can see that their means is counter-productive to their purpose. (To their purpose, not to yours. That is of course, unless you are just lying about being outraged for purposes of your own. Then I could understand your voiced objection.)
Except He doesn’t happen to agree with me. I find I have to conform to His standard. Like I said, and I find that it’s to my benefit and to the benefit of those around me. And that confirms to me that that standard is better than the one I would have chosen.
Once again, i’m sure we’ve had this conversation before. The creator gets to decide what purpose he made his creation for. No one can come along later and say, “you didn’t mean that, you obviously created it for this purpose.” You can say, “I’m not going to go along with that purpose,” but he can always trump you with, “but that is the purpose you were created for, even if you don’t want to go along with it.”
If a superior being made a universe for the purpose of baby eatting, that would be the purpose of the universe. (meaningless tautology, but it has to be said for the benefit of some people.) And the purpose defines what is “moral,” so, baby eatting would be “moral.” Since morality has to be defined in terms of what fulfills the purpose.
We’ve had these discussions more than once before, and I know where it goes. And it ends with you leaving and spouting the same unsupportable statements again elsewhere. And I’m not interested in that.
The things you don’t like about religion are largely the idea behind this thread. People of real faith don’t like them either and think they have hi-jacked our expression of faith. I’ve believed this for a while, but I recently heard a pastor of a large church say it too. Christianity is jam packed with people who aren’t Christians. they have an outward show of belief, but just use it to push their own goals. Like you said, they make god say what they want. It’s possible you haven’t seen what true Christianity actually says, you’ve only seen the bad example of people who say they are Christians and aren’t. Well, guess what? Christians don’t like that either. And that is the meaning of this thread.
If you’re just going to keep going on about how God isn’t real and a myth, I’m not going to respond, because it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter if it fulfills a purpose. And it does. For those of us who follow it. And, If you’ve seen my rationale, you should realize that if the concept of God didn’t exist in the world, but I wanted to believe that a decent society should be the goal of mankind? Or if I choose to believe that there are universal human rights, or that it’s a universal moral law that people should be good to each other? Then i would have to invent the concept of God.