| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/11/2011 05:44:55 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[Nobody doubts that. (well, we doubt a lot about you...) The question is, if you buy into this system where there are some universal mores and some cultural or individual ones, where does "slavery is not nice" fall? and why? |
Viewed in a different perspective it could be argued that slavery is very much alive and well today... it is the facade of slavery that has changed. People working for starvation wages, governed by oppressive regimes and neglected by affluent societies are... for all intents and purposes... slaves to their environments
Ray |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 05:52:33 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[Nobody doubts that. (well, we doubt a lot about you...) The question is, if you buy into this system where there are some universal mores and some cultural or individual ones, where does "slavery is not nice" fall? and why? |
Viewed in a different perspective it could be argued that slavery is very much alive and well today... it is the facade of slavery that has changed. People working for starvation wages, governed by oppressive regimes and neglected by affluent societies are... for all intents and purposes... slaves to their environments
Ray |
Oh, please! I can omly assume you're playing Devil's Advocate here. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 05:53:03 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I think it is entirely intuitive, within the identified group. What is not intuitive is that others, outside the group that we have been socialized to identify as our own, similarly share the same experience. |
I completely agree with this. But if "empathy and awareness of shared, collective experience" is the foundational bedrock for human rights, it is a difficult case to make when your average human says, "sure, but of course that doesn't count for Mr. X over there because he is (insert difference)". If the person you are convincing doesn't feel your "empathy and awareness", then it doesn't hold much sway, does it? It's a tough nut when trying to effect change.
The future great secular philosophers will have to grapple with this. They probably are already...
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 17:54:56. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 05:57:22 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... In the very specific area being discussed now, how did humanity transition from being a slave-holding species to a relatively widespread abhorrence of slaveholding...
R. |
Hmmmmmmm If I guessed that the industrial revolution might have played a significant part in the process, would I be close?
Ray |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 05:59:05 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I think it is entirely intuitive, within the identified group. What is not intuitive is that others, outside the group that we have been socialized to identify as our own, similarly share the same experience. |
I completely agree with this. But if "empathy and awareness of shared, collective experience" is the foundational bedrock for human rights, it is a difficult case to make when your average human says, "sure, but of course that doesn't count for Mr. X over there because he is (insert difference)". If the person you are convincing doesn't feel your "empathy and awareness", then it doesn't hold much sway, does it? It's a tough nut when trying to effect change. |
I don't know anyone (and certainly not me) who would make the claim that it is somehow easy to effect change. Moral change is slow, plodding work, usually accomplished generationally, when accomplished at all.
What's your point?
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 18:35:50.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2011 06:56:38 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Additionally, I would argue that the religious impulse hinders the growth of empathy and a shared sense of humanity. Religion is inherently tribal--the modern ecumenical strain is a brief, and seemingly waning, interlude in an otherwise exclusive history of fierce religious competition--and aggressively resistant to moderating evidence. This characteristic of religion is not why I am an atheist, but it is why I am a strident secularist. The modern world no longer affords us the luxury of the pettiness of these archaic myths. |
You're going to get a kick out of this author, a jew named Brog. At first you'll be all in line with him and it's interesting to see how similar your language is, but then he's going to arrive at conclusions you obviously don't hold:
"Throughout the ages, humans have demonstrated an instinctive altruism toward their families and their tribes. As human societies grew larger and more complex, the definition of one's "tribe" has often expanded to include entire races, religions, and nation-states. Yet the one constant throughout most of human history has been that those outside this shifting zone of compassion--those not in our "ingroup"--have never been deemed worthy of empathy or concern. These outsiders can be enslaved. And they can be killed. Slavery and genocide are hardly historical anomalies. They have been the overwhelming rule.
The radical ideea at the root of the Judeo-Christian tradition is that all human beings are created in the image of God. Both Judaism and Christianity therefore stress the sanctity and equality of all humans. Even more importantly, these faiths demand not merely that we recognize the value of our neighbors, but also that we love them and act on this love by serving them. From the Judeo-Christian perspective, the neighborhood grows to encompass the entire world, and the ingroup swells and swallows all outgroups. Hated strangers become beloved brothers."
Anyway, I don't bring this up to suddenly start talking about God (this isn't that "aha!" moment.) I just found it interesting that both of you started with similar impressions on the state of things but then came to almost polar opposite conclusions. And while the quick reply is to point out instances where Christians or Jews are hardly showing such love for their outgroup neighbors, it seems that we as humans are prone to "pettiness" as you called it and even without religion we can find lines of in/outgroups anyway. As Brog says, "if there be fault in my failure to observe it (the Judeo-Christian principle), the fault lies with me, not with the law." |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 07:23:47 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The radical ideea at the root of the Judeo-Christian tradition is that all human beings are created in the image of God. Both Judaism and Christianity therefore stress the sanctity and equality of all humans. Even more importantly, these faiths demand not merely that we recognize the value of our neighbors, but also that we love them and act on this love by serving them. From the Judeo-Christian perspective, the neighborhood grows to encompass the entire world, and the ingroup swells and swallows all outgroups. Hated strangers become beloved brothers." |
By "value" he must mean "suitable for conversion" and "love by serving them" has meant "forced conversion". That is how his radical idea has played out historically.
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 19:30:15.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2011 07:32:32 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"The radical ideea at the root of the Judeo-Christian tradition is that all human beings are created in the image of God. Both Judaism and Christianity therefore stress the sanctity and equality of all humans. Even more importantly, these faiths demand not merely that we recognize the value of our neighbors, but also that we love them and act on this love by serving them. From the Judeo-Christian perspective, the neighborhood grows to encompass the entire world, and the ingroup swells and swallows all outgroups. Hated strangers become beloved brothers." |
No, I don't buy it. I'm going to take up your offer of a quick reply, as the whole premise of his argument is flawed.
Let me direct you to the 'gay marriage' thread, for one. Not only has the Judeo-Christian tradition not turned 'hated strangers into beloved brothers' or managed to encompass the whole world in a holy love-in, it has in fact been a cause of division and hatred and has helped define and create these outgroups, for centuries.
ETA: edited, as religion is one of many causes of division and hatred, not the only one. ;)
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 19:53:13. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 07:39:07 PM · #184 |
Fine. I'm not surprised you two hold those views. But you need to realize that in cases where religion has been removed from society...the exact same behavior continues. Only the details change. It's hard to say that religion has "been the cause" of such ingroup/outgroup fighting when, if you remove it, the same behavior is seen.
But, listen, you guys are the anti-est of the anti-religious crew, so your position is fully expected. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 07:54:59 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's hard to say that religion has "been the cause" of such ingroup/outgroup fighting when, if you remove it, the same behavior is seen. |
Yes, on re-reading my post my original assertion sounds wrong - I've edited it. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 08:05:46 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's hard to say that religion has "been the cause" of such ingroup/outgroup fighting when, if you remove it, the same behavior is seen. |
Yes, on re-reading my post my original assertion sounds wrong - I've edited it. |
Thanks. Listen, I don't disagree with you. Religion is yet another delineator that allows humans to declare "us" and "them". At the least the root of the J-C faith tries to eradicate this. Again, "if there be fault in my failure to observe this, the fault lies with me, not with the law". However, it goes without saying that showing love to an "outgroup" can be complicated when the outgroup doesn't want to be part of the ingroup, or beliefs exist between the two which are mutually exclusive. Is it impossible to do? No. Is it easy and clear how to proceed? Not at all. Forgive us when we wrestle with the messiness of life. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 08:14:18 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Part of the fun of poking the faithful is to see what kind of response you'll get. since there's so much diversity in tenets, you don't really know what kind of Christian you're dealing with 'til you see how they go ballistic. Some of the rules & regulations, and all asked to be followed without questions, are so ridiculous that they make anyone with a modicum of common sense ask how an intelligent being could accept them without question.
The main differences that that make the atheist so problematic is that he/she wants some sort of proof, and the right to ask why. Does that seem unreasonable for an intelligent being? |
Jeb, next time you're around some form of Christianity that expects you to believe a certain thing/follow a certain rule without questioning you should just do what I've done my whole life... run and don't look back! All the churches that I've attended encourage folks to ask questions. They didn't want people to just show up on Sunday and blindly follow a bunch of rules. They were looking for people that were convinced about their faith and motivated to do something about it. Genuine, authentic, sincere (and might I add biblical) Christians are those who study the Bible regularly, ask difficult questions, pursue knowledge, refine their convictions, and actively seek ways to act out their faith. Anything else is not biblical Christianity, but extra-biblical Christianity. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 08:15:01 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, it goes without saying that showing love to an "outgroup" can be complicated when the outgroup doesn't want to be part of the ingroup, or beliefs exist between the two which are mutually exclusive. Is it impossible to do? No. Is it easy and clear how to proceed? Not at all. Forgive us when we wrestle with the messiness of life. |
I must admit to feeling cautious about this thread. Not only did you start it, but I've got a feeling you're steering it a certain direction.
So is this the part where you try to convince 'us atheists' that the world needs religion, that religion ain't all that bad really. We just need to give you a chance to work your love on the outgroups?
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 20:16:00. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 08:21:48 PM · #189 |
No, really. I promise. Of course you know I feel that way, but we've hashed it over a zillion times and we don't need to hash it a zillion and one. honestly, I learn by asking questions and probing answers. It's an engineers approach. We seem to always talk about MY view and I defend MY view. But how often do we talk about the OTHER view? Hardly ever. If I try, it generally gets thrown back to MY view quickly.
But keep being cautious. You never know. I may jump out and scare the crap out of you yet... ;P |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 08:33:43 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No, really. I promise. Of course you know I feel that way, but we've hashed it over a zillion times and we don't need to hash it a zillion and one. honestly, I learn by asking questions and probing answers. It's an engineers approach. We seem to always talk about MY view and I defend MY view. But how often do we talk about the OTHER view? Hardly ever. |
Because there isn't a view! That's the joy of atheism, it doesn't need to be defended. ;-)
It's not like my 'faith' in atheism is threatened by any of the arguments presented in this thread. It's not like I need to continuously question and test my commitment to my non-beliefs. I don't need to meet up with my fellow atheists every Sunday and compare notes and reassure myself that I picked the right crowd.
What's the worst that a Christian can say to me? "You don't believe in my God! Why not? Defend yourself!"... or... "Repent, it's not too late! You can still get into Heaven!"
In fact, the only thing I have to realistically worry about because of my viewpoints is falling foul of the blasphemy laws in this country.
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 20:34:18. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 08:36:46 PM · #191 |
| Nono. That's not what I mean. I mean the other view on lots of things, not just the direct "is there a God" question. Morality. Science. etc. Everybody keeps saying "atheism isn't a view", but yet atheists certainly have views. Maybe they aren't all alike, but religious people don't all have the same views either and we tend to get lumped together... |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 08:49:14 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nono. That's not what I mean. I mean the other view on lots of things, not just the direct "is there a God" question. Morality. Science. etc. Everybody keeps saying "atheism isn't a view", but yet atheists certainly have views. Maybe they aren't all alike, but religious people don't all have the same views either and we tend to get lumped together... |
Because the two sides of the debate become 'Science' versus 'Science-with-bits-of-God-included', or 'Morality' versus 'Morality-needs-God', or 'The Big Bang' versus 'The-Big-Bang-God-edition'
We'll go down the route of debating a piece of science, until we have a god-of-the-gaps argument thrown at us, followed swiftly by a 'Therefore, God exists, QED'
And that's what I meant by 'steering this thread in a certain direction' |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 08:49:20 PM · #193 |
I don't really see what this thread has to do with Atheism. It seems to be more about social behavior. Still, an interesting subject. Hopefully it won't get too religiony and jump the shark. I admit that the 'commandment' to do unto others as you would have them do unto you is very common sense, something I figured out at a very young age, by my non-religious self, and something I live by.
See, I'm not too chicken to give a couple points to  DrAchoo. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 08:57:54 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nono. That's not what I mean. I mean the other view on lots of things, not just the direct "is there a God" question. Morality. Science. etc. Everybody keeps saying "atheism isn't a view", but yet atheists certainly have views. Maybe they aren't all alike, but religious people don't all have the same views either and we tend to get lumped together... |
Re-read Kelli's post. Atheists are just like theists in every aspect. They are 99.999999999999999999999% the same. The .000000000000000000001 difference is in that one question you just mention (i.e. is there a god).
Correction: Make that 99.999999999999999999998%. They also sometimes differ one what constitutes a belief.
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 21:00:08.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2011 08:57:54 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I don't really see what this thread has to do with Atheism. It seems to be more about social behavior. Still, an interesting subject. Hopefully it won't get too religiony and jump the shark. I admit that the 'commandment' to do unto others as you would have them do unto you is very common sense, something I figured out at a very young age, by my non-religious self, and something I live by.
See, I'm not too chicken to give a couple points to DrAchoo. ;-) |
Is this the time to bring up that "do unto others" isn't a commandment? :)
|
|
|
|
02/11/2011 08:59:04 PM · #196 |
Well, with that I can declare "I win" and we can all have a nice weekend! :D
EDIT: Wow. See this is how posts get missed, not me purposely ignoring them. In the time it took me to write that sentence in response to Slippy, two new posts pop up. Just sayin'...
Message edited by author 2011-02-11 21:01:29. |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 09:01:21 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, with that I can declare "I win" and we can all have a nice weekend! :D |
Be careful. You wouldn't want to hit your head and forget you're a Christian and lose that moral foundation. The world wouldn't be safe. :)
|
|
|
|
02/11/2011 09:02:16 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, with that I can declare "I win" and we can all have a nice weekend! :D |
Be careful. You wouldn't want to hit your head and forget you're a Christian and lose that moral foundation. The world wouldn't be safe. :) |
Don't make me outgroup your ass... |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 10:00:12 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...If "empathy and an awareness of shared, collective experience" is the basis for human rights, why do you think it's so non-intuitive for us humans? |
I don't think it's non-intuitive. Even Bill and Ted figured it out, "Be excellent to each other." |
I don't think it's non-intuitive either. It think it's MORE non-intuitive (on a sliding scale, not an absolute) to treat others like shit crap. I think that is learned behavior (with the exception of psychopaths.) |
|
|
|
02/11/2011 11:16:30 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
First Question:
Does the universe consist of only the material world that we can detect? |
I still don't think this has been addressed. Or did I miss it? |
|
