Aetheists know more about religion

@Setanta,

No.

How does an atheist explain to a child that it is wrong to hurt another human being? It cannot be done without establishing a concept of absolute right and wrong, in which actions can be measured and value determined. The child has to rely absolutely on this moral conviction that it has been taught, because it does not possess the ability to contrast these things without alot more information and experience.
This is an example of social functions of religion. Even if the convictions you put at the foundation of the absolutes you create come entirely from logic thought and reasonable interpretation of scientific fact, the act of putting it at the very foundation of what will be the deepest moral beliefs of a human being makes it religion.

But if you say that theism is unneccesary for this process I may agree. Perhaps evolution has reached that point.

3 Replies

@dyslexia,

How so?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

How does an atheist explain to a child that it is wrong to hurt another human being? It cannot be done without establishing a concept of absolute right and wrong, in which actions can be measured and value determined.

More ipse dixit bullshit. There is the concept of enlightened self-interest ("Listen little Cyracuz, if you poke Jimmy in the eye, he will probably poke you right back, and i'll just laugh and laugh") and the concept of the social contract ("We don't allow people to go around poking others in the eye because no one wants to be poked in the eye, and if you do, they're gonna lock your pathetic ass up, and i'll just laugh and laugh"). There is no demonstrable necessity of an absolute concept of right and wrong.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

well cyracuz, because it's pretty silly.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

How does an atheist explain to a child that it is wrong to hurt another human being?

With a detailed Powerpoint presentation.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

How does an atheist explain to a child that it is wrong to hurt another human being?

With their fists.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

To quote W. C. Fields:

Back to the reform school, you little nose-pickers!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

There is the concept of enlightened self-interest ("Listen little Cyracuz, if you poke Jimmy in the eye, he will probably poke you right back, and i'll just laugh and laugh") and the concept of the social contract ("We don't allow people to go around poking others in the eye because no one wants to be poked in the eye, and if you do, they're gonna lock your pathetic ass up, and i'll just laugh and laugh").

Are those not principles that are taught in pretty much every religion? That they have been adopted by secular belief systems does not change the fact that they have governed the social interactions between humans probably for as long as there has been anything that fit the description of a society. And our willingness to abide by them isn't only a matter of the intelligent understanding that it benefits you to do so. It is rooted deep in the emotional life of every individual, and therefore, any concept you introduce to replace religion in preforming this function would not erase religion, but rather become new religion.

Quote:

There is no demonstrable necessity of an absolute concept of right and wrong.

What about one to evolve within to the point where you are able to understand on a more individual basis the dynamic balance of relationships?

3 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Atheists may have more facts about christianity, but it is my opinion that a person declares himself an atheist only after failing to grasp the meaning and purpose of religion.

I'm curious what the purpose of religion is.

I see it used for so many different purposes, I wonder how many people that use it for their own purposes truly grasp the purpose. So what is the actual purpose?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Are those not principles that are taught in pretty much every religion? That they have been adopted by secular belief systems does not change the fact that they have governed the social interactions between humans probably for as long as there has been anything that fit the description of a society.

That is a rather specious assumption. It could well be that religion has adopted secular belief systems for their own use.

Quote:

It is rooted deep in the emotional life of every individual, and therefore, any concept you introduce to replace religion in preforming this function would not erase religion, but rather become new religion.

I really doubt that emotion is the same thing as religion. I can have lots of emotions without religion and one can certainly have religion without emotion. (Obviously you have never met a Lutheran.)

0 Replies

@parados,

Its called "know thy enemy."

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

So what is the actual purpose?

My guess para is that you don't wish to know the answer and that it is more comforting for you to focus on your own invented purposes as they are easier to denigrate.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I asked because someone said religion has a purpose which makes it sound like a single purpose. My years have shown me that the purpose of religion is as varied as the people that practice it.

Just because you feel asking someone for the purpose of religion is denigrating the religious spendi doesn't mean I am doing that. However if someone wants to talk in circles and say nothing as you often do, I am more than happy to point that out. That doesn't equate to denigrating your religion however. I have no clue as to what religion you practice. I don't really care.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Your claims are too silly really for a serious answer, but i'll give you one anyway. All living tigers breathe--do you assume on that basis that all beings which breathe are tigers? That religion carefully imitates successful social norms is not evidence either that religion invented the norms, nor that no such norms would exist without religion. The social contract is not, and never has been a religion, nor was it intended to replace religion, nor was it necessary to "replace religion." The social contract is indifferent to religion, and is completely secular and areligious in its best examples. You really sound desperate here, and i wonder whom it is you wish to convince--me, or yourself.

Quote:

What about one to evolve within to the point where you are able to understand on a more individual basis the dynamic balance of relationships?

This sentence is nearly incomprehensible. Why don't you restate it, only do it in English this time.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The social contract is not, and never has been a religion, nor was it intended to replace religion, nor was it necessary to "replace religion." The social contract is indifferent to religion, and is completely secular and areligious in its best examples.

At the risk of being accused of spreading horseshit, I have to disagree. You're looking at religion as something that came from outerspace or something. It came from us. The word connotes binding.. as to tradition.

The crux of the matter is that there's two ways to think about religion.

1. As a living form of society... a living world view.
2. As a fossilized set of images and practices one might view in a museum.

Using the first meaning, humans never live without some form of religion. It's just that in our time, when we use that term to refer to one of the global religions, it's not obvious that, though church and state are separated, we still have a unifying world view. We can see prevailing values and images. By comparing our world to previous ones, the identity of our world view comes into focus. If you object to calling that religion, cool... whatever. But if you don't see that our world view is fundamentally the same thing that the fossilized images once were, then you've got an abyss between us and our forebears that I don't think really exists.

0 Replies

I'm currently reading The History of Doubt, by Jennifer Hecht. She presents an interesting hypothesis that, while there are always atheists and doubters, there are significant periods of doubt during transitions from one major "empire" (or world view, if you choose) to another. She begins with the ancient Greeks, then the Romans, the eastern traditions, the Huns, the Spanish, and so on... but focuses on the transitions between them and how the 'Great Religions' of history fade away and are reinvented by followers of radical thinkers (doubters) who take the message and turn it into yet another religion.

It's a good read.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I am trying out the idea. Your input is a good way to keep a check on my (sometimes a bit too vivid) imagination. It is a fine line to walk, trying to think "outside of the box" and produce ideas that are useful to me "inside the box", thereby expanding the size of "the box".

What I mean to say that if you were successful in removing all religious aspects from society, and replaced the social functions it has had with social contracts and secular sets of belief, it would only be a matter of time before people started to relate to these beliefs in the same way they relate to religion today.
An individual who knows the "truths" but not their explanations, might make up explanations that convey the relations through fictive concepts, thereby communicating his "truth" without any direct relation the facts it corresponds to.

Quote:

Quote:
What about one to evolve within to the point where you are able to understand on a more individual basis the dynamic balance of relationships?

This sentence is nearly incomprehensible. Why don't you restate it, only do it in English this time.

What about an absolute of right and wrong to evolve within, until you are able to understand the usefulness and the limitations of such concepts in making your judgements.

I hope that is better.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

What about an absolute of right and wrong to evolve within, until you are able to understand the usefulness and the limitations of such concepts in making your judgements.

I think that would be a bad idea. People are lazy, and even if they suspect something may be wrong, they'll usually take the path of least resistance, and something like this would never resolve into independent, responsible thinking.

1 Reply

You need a better understanding of the social contract concept. It is at least as old as, and probably older than religion. It doesn't replace religion, and religion is irrelevant to it. It exists independently of religion. An example of social contract (a horribly bad example) imperatives are female infanticide and female genital mutilation practiced by Muslims in Africa even though it is not called for nor even authorized by the Quran.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I think that would be a bad idea. People are lazy, and even if they suspect something may be wrong, they'll usually take the path of least resistance, and something like this would never resolve into independent, responsible thinking.

I still think that a two year old needs absolute rights and wrongs. Or perhaps it is just the only practical way to raise a child so you don't have to guard it every waking minute.

1 Reply

Aetheists know more about religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know