Re: I am a bad Atheist

deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> >
>> > aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > <aborg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> >> >> deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > <aborg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> deemsbill@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 28 Dec 2005 18:40:02 GMT, <aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 28 Dec 2005 14:40:35 GMT, <aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>J. Hugh Sullivan <sull1927@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:39:38 -0000, rich hammett
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> <bubbarichau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>Min? suojelen sinua kaikelta, mit? ikin? keksitkin sanoa, J. Hugh Sullivan:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> "Your spiritual beliefs" is a positive phrase and in no way IMO
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> permits the ABSENCE of spiritual beliefs.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>I'm not even sure I can conceive of an absence of spiritual
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>beliefs.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>rich
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Atheist.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Atheists have an absence of religious belief, not necessarily spiritual
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>beliefs.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>--
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>Aaron
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> In the context of the thread I thought them synonymous terms.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>They aren't.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>--
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Aaron
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > spir?i?tu?al \"spir-i-ch?l, -ch?-w?l\ adj 1 : of, relating to,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal 2 : of or
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > relating to sacred matters 3 : ecclesiastical rather than lay or
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > temporal ? spir?i?tu?al?i?ty \'spir-i-ch?-"wa-l?-tE\ n ?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > spir?i?tu?al?ize \"spir-i-ch?-'liz, -ch?-w?-\ vb ? spir?i?tu?al?ly adv
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > (c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > rights reserved
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > O S M R
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Spiritual belief of an atheist is hoping the breweries can keep up
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > with him. They have nothing to do with the soul.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > An atheist has no reason to have a code of conduct or rules of
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > behavior. If you don't believe that read RSFC sometime.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Some of us don't need an outside reason to have a code of conduct or rules
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of behavior.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Aaron
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > But whether you like it or not, that is the vehicle which has been
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > used throughout history.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ...and how much of human social behavior is recorded in history? 1%? Even
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> while "an outside reason" existed through much of history that "outside
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> reason" wasn't always religion either.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Aaron
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I think you would be hard-pressed to find secular moral codes
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > before the Enlightenment.......and those rose out of Christianity.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Plato, Aristotle, Hammurabi, Confucius...
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Hammurabi is the only non-derivitive (that we know of) one
>> >> >> >> >> >> > listed..and Hammurabi's was definitely not secular.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Derivitive is irrelevant - they are (mostly) secular moral codes, and
>> >> >> >> >> >> pre-Christian.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> >> Aaron
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Not when they derived from Greek and chinese religious moral codes.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Which themselves derived from pre-historical sources we have little idea of
>> >> >> >> >> origin for - but again irrelevant, unless your claim is that it is
>> >> >> >> >> impossible for a secular moral code to derive from a non-secular moral code.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> >> Aaron
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > And what were those pre-historical sources?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> They're pre-historical - that means we don't know because we have no data.
>> >> >> >> If we had data, it wouldn't be pre-historical.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > It's not irrelevant
>> >> >> >> > because if a secular moral code derives from a religious code....it's
>> >> >> >> > not really secular.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Even if all religious reasoning and obligation is removed?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If the first time I ever hear the phrase "Do Not Murder" is from the ten
>> >> >> >> commandments and I institute it into my moral code - but I ignore the
>> >> >> >> religious reasoning behind it and the religious traditions associated with
>> >> >> >> it - is my moral code (with no reference to religion) not secular?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> Aaron
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, you think Socrates (pretty much the source of Plato and
>> >> >> > Aristotle) ignored the religious aspects of morality?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, but Plato and Aristotle themselves tossed quite a lot of that
>> >> >> underpinning out.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Aaron
>> >> >
>> >> > So, if I take the 10 Commandments and toss out the God-stuff, I'm
>> >> > making a secular code?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, by definition.
>> >
>> > But it's still based upon religion.
>>
>> But being based upon religion doesn't make something religious.
>
> True, but how would it have developed without the religious base?
> I know....rhetorical question.

How did the religious base develop? Is it turtles all the way down?

>> >> > I can see the argument, but my point is just as
>> >> > valid. As far as we know, human moral codes arose from religions.
>> >>
>> >> As far as we know we have no idea where human moral codes arose from. Our
>> >> earliest history shows human moral codes being tied to religion, but our
>> >> earliest history starts about 55 minutes into a one hour program.
>> >
>> > Not for Homo Sapiens or Homo Neanderthalus. We have good evidence
>> > of religion for probably 55 minutes of the hour.
>>
>> So you're saying we have good evidence of religion going back 350,000 years?
>> Religion, not ritual...
>
> We have evidence of ritual. I'd say ritual has the earmarks of
> religion. Once again, we don't really know either way.

So we don't have good evidence for religion going back 350,000 years.

>> > The
>> >> Enlightenment arose from religion, that doesn't make the Enlightenment
>> >> religious.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Aaron
>> >
>> > But the fact that it arose from religion makes the religious part
>> > important.
>>
>> It makes the religious past important. It doesn't make the Enlightenment
>> religious.
>
> Isn't that what I've been saying?

No.

--
Aaron
.

Relevant Pages

  • Why do biblethumpers get a free pass???
    ... Hey Religious Believers, Where's Your Evidence? ... evidence for religion that I haven't seen yet -- I want to know. ... So why should it be beyond reason or evidence? ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Science versus religion fnord
    ... i just told you i dont use faith. ... evidence free and not susceptible to evidence. ... When ever you use the phrase "religion does X", ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: canRe: Moderatorial Note
    ... It's a matter of making a serious effort to ... have one's beliefs proportioned to the available evidence ... apparent decline in religion. ... far enough to help in the alleged weakening of communities. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: The ToE kept alive by governement grants.
    ... It's not important that they offer "scientific" evidence for ... like where supernatural reasoning lead somebody to do something good, ... I am willing to grant ground for other epistemologies based upon the ... Religion is not the enemy, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What are we doing here?
    ... is any evidence for it. ... However, that is not the case with the culture itself, which is ... >> didn't invent it, ... the notion that spirit and religion are identical is an assumption that ...
    (talk.origins)