Nonsense. “Rules against being aggressive and mean” are as un-Christian as you get. Christianity got to its present position by being as “aggressive and mean” as it is possible to be. If I was an atheist operating by traditional Christian principles like you claim, I’d get a gun and start killing people for not being atheists.
“In exchange for their existence”? That just make it an example of power lust as well, not to mention ridiculous given how awful a job God did creating humans, assuming he was real and actually did so.
And as for why it’s egomania, it’s egomania for the same reason that me putting up in front of a petri dish full of bacteria a photograph of myself labeled “behold my greatness” would be egomania. Why would a genuine universe creating superior being care about overawing a bunch of bald apes?
Indeed. If a hypothetical people gets a rule from their hypothetical creator, saying, “Keep off the grass.”; and later on, as a matter of convenience, they add, “… unless it’s green.”, the now meaningless rule is still based on the original revelation. It still is if every other people on earth has come up with that same rule on their own; and it still is if they have lots of rules adopted from other sources.
I was merely pointing out that atheists are not cut off from the Biblical guidelines.
Agreed again. People will misuse whatever they find for their own, selfish ends. To be a bit more explicit on that point, I’m not a christian. I believe that those laws were given to Israel to govern their affairs, and their relationship with God; and after christianity had detached them from their natural environment, the now freely interpretable remains obviously proved useful for a lot of people to justify their atrocities. I’m certainly not claiming that just to have a Bible will make you a good person. Only that many of those laws have become elements of our current legal and ethical concepts.
Sure; but those people didn’t come up with their ethics out of the blue. They merely modified existing concepts of right and wrong. I mean, it’s not like Kant had suddenly discovered on scientific grounds that humans have a right to life.
Aside from family law and obviously religious laws (like blasphemy codes), a significant portion of Western law stems from Roman civil law, much of which was derived before Christianity was officially adopted by the empire. For example, the Napoleonic code was based in part on the Corpus Juris Civilis which in turn was based in part on the Codex Greorianus and the Codex Hermonenianus, both of which pre-date Christianity’s adoption by the Roman Empire.
English-derived or influenced common law systems, while also relying on Roman civil law for much of their development, also were heavily influenced by natural law philosophy as well as the development of modern capitalist economic analysis.
Now, of course, I’m sure you’ve done a thorough study of the history of the development of Western legal systems, since you’re here lecturing us about them. So, why don’t you tell us where you got this information you are coming up with, since I would hate to think you are lecturing people about a subject which you haven’t actually done any basic research on. We wouldn’t want to think that you were intentionally violating the ninth commandment.
Actually, you are just underlining our point since those ideas didn’t start in the Bible. So by your own logic we’re all following “Sumerian influences” or something of the sort, not Biblical ones.
All you are really doing is trying the standard Christian trick of trying to steal credit for things and give it to Christianity.
Wrong, we threw them out as part of the process of becoming more civilized. The parts we kept, like rules against theft and murder aren’t Christian in the slightest but just generic rules for running a society. You might as well claim our society is based on Christian principles because we wear clothes in cold weather.
And what makes you think the people who ran around killing and oppressing in the name of God were misusing Christianity? On the contrary; that is true Christianity to the extent that anything is. Both because their actions served and reflected the fundamental worldview and purpose (namely, to spread itself at any cost) of Christianity better than any attempt to twist Christianity into a force for good, and because for most of the history of Christianity there were the overwhelming dominate force. You don’t get to pretend they weren’t Christians just because their behavior is now considered an embarrassment.
If I was an atheist operating by traditional Christian principles like you claim, I’d get a gun and start killing people for not being atheists.
Awful job? How, in your opinion, should humans have been created; and from what do you conclude that would have been God’s intention? And I still don’t see why it would be “power lust” if you create something for some purpose, and then expect it to serve that purpose.
Apparently, all that showing off is barely sufficient to prevent us from self-destruction; so I wouldn’t exactly speak of “overawing”. And your analogy doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense, given that that photograph isn’t likely to have any effect on your bacteria. But if you managed to create a strain of bacteria with an ability to appreciate such methods, and that will produce either substance A or substance B, depending on what you tell them; and you then place your picture there to remind them that you can simply throw them out if you don’t get from them what you made them for - is that still “egomania”?
It’s an interesting possibility if the Bible were true and there were other alien races in the universe. Imagine a devout Christian going to Heaven and finding out it full of aliens.
No, I haven’t done such a study; and I concede that I might have overestimated the extend to which Europe’s christian history has shaped our ethics and laws. But maybe that would be less of an issue if people wouldn’t read so much into my posts that simply isn’t there. Then, maybe, someone might have noticed that the insertion, “to which atheists might or might not adhere, to the same individual extend as religious folks do to Biblical laws”, is meant to express that I don’t believe that anyone’s commitment to morality is essentially dependent on their particular beliefs. Then, maybe, someone might have realized that I’m not saying that Biblical laws are necessary to constitute a reasonable moral system, but only that - regardless of how they actually got there - those laws are reflected in the concepts atheists grow up with. And then, maybe, some kind of fair and reasonable conversation would have been possible.
But maybe that’s just not what people want.
Oh please; humans are proverbially flawed, mentally and physically. Flimsy, stupid, irrational, with appendixes and reverse mounted retinas and impacted wisdom teeth and nearsightedness and on and on. No competent designer would have built us as we are. As the result of a mindless process like evolution we are impressive; as the result of a god’s design we are an example of incompetence.
When the things you create are people and not inanimate objects.
On the contrary, it has done an excellent job of getting us to massacre each other.
Yes; again, why would I or a god care about the opinion of something so much less?
But they aren’t. Again; “modern Western laws and ethics” largely consists of rejecting the values of the Bible. The first rule for achieving any sort of social, moral or scientific progress is to throw out religion. Christianity included. Our achievement of a relatively more decent society has involved a long war against the oppressive and malignant hand of Christianity, not following its principles.
No, that’s fairly common too. Typically by someone who turns out to have always been Christian, or who shows up later talking about how they “found Jesus” again. At most, a disgruntled Christian looking for an excuse to convince himself he should believe, and not an actual unbeliever.
You seem to be using the terms law and morality interchangeably? Perhaps you shouldn’t drag the term “law” into the mix, since the idea that modern Western legal systems are Biblically derived isn’t really a supportable position.
Obviously a lot of western moral code is contained in the Bible. I think the issue that people are having is the argument that it originated in the Bible. The Roman legal system, to give a prominent example, also codified much of our moral code but wasn’t based on the Bible.
Your analogy would be more accurate if you’d said the new rule was “It’s perfectly OK to walk on the grass”. I’m sorry, but you can’t say something that goes entirely *against *something that came before is somehow inspired or based upon that thing.
It’s as silly as saying modern astronomy is “based on” flat Earth geocentrism.
Which ones, exactly ?
Err… yes, actually, that’s exactly like it. Humanists and natural philosophers essentially said “all right, this is not working at all, let’s start again from scratch, using logic and empirical observations this time”. If anything, their philosophies drew from pre-Christian philosophers like Aristotle and Socrates. But certainly not from the Bible, nor the theologians of their time.
Unless your position is that since the Christian God created everything, then Socrates’ ethics are derived from God’s natural laws and thus modern ethics are from God too. In which case I’m not entirely sure why you’d go around pretending not to be a Christian.
I can’t speak for him but I’d assume he follows the standard belief that Satan and other demons are fallen angels. And babies are obviously human not extraterrestrial.
