Witchcraft as a metaphor for religion [Archive]

niffe9

06-28-2007, 11:09 AM

Sam Harris recently used witchcraft as an analogy for religion in his most recent article called In Defense of Witchcraft and at the end of his most recent debate with Chris Hedges. (Both are linked from his site www.samharris.org (http://www.samharris.org))

Sam Harris would say we invented witchcraft and religion to explain what we didn't know and give reason to sickness,difficult to accept/strange things,etc. Sam Harris would argue that the end of religion would be beneficial for the same ways that the end of witchcraft was (witches/infidels would not be unjustly killed, people would look to doctors and science to cure disease instead of blaming witches/sinners,etc) Clearly religion is more powerful and satisfying than witchcraft(for the mere reason that it is still prevalent). It also covers the human struggle with death and the afterlife and gives something constant and unchanging for people to lean on.
How apt do people find this comparison?

Lestat

06-28-2007, 12:30 PM

It depends on how you look at it. To me, both religion and witchcraft are simply superstitions. You can lump them in with astrology, numerology, et.al. The difference is, religion is taken seriously in much higher numbers so it garners an automatic respect that other superstitions do not. The question is, is such respect deserved? To me it's the epitome of irony that a Christian can laugh at an astrologist with a straight face.

Bill Haywood

06-28-2007, 01:37 PM

Despite being an atheist, I am usually annoyed when religion is called superstition. Not because it's not technically true, it is, but because its a misguided rhetorical device.

When religion is called superstition, it is always for the purpose of discrediting it. But their are plenty of religious people who are wonderful, both personally and in their social beliefs. Calling religion superstition over estimates the damage from religion, and underestimates the damage from materialist beliefs (materialism as philosophy, not consumption).

Compare the good work done for the poor by liberation theology, and the bad work by the atheist materialists of the Khmer Rouge.

When someone calls religion superstition, it's a sure sign that they have an arrogant belief in the moral superiority of rationalism. But compare the materialists Stalin and Pol Pot to Mother Teresa, and you see that there is NOTHING inherently moral about materialism. Materialists are prone to all the same stupid mistakes of politics and nationalism, they just rationalize them differently.

Dawkins should go after the materialist British Labor Party for its senseless war in Iraq, and leave the Fellowship of Reconciliation types out of it.

Lestat

06-28-2007, 02:02 PM

But their are plenty of religious people who are wonderful, both personally and in their social beliefs. 

There are also plenty of wonderful people who believe in their horoscope or won't walk under a ladder.

I'm not sure what your point is. ??

niffe9

06-28-2007, 02:20 PM

I agree with your point that there is nothing inherently moral about materialism. In general, a person will adopt a set of beliefs that affirms their actions.

I always grimmace when someone points out that a world without religion would not be a utopia (getting rid of religion = getting rid of all evil). From what I see, atheists don't believe this at all. We simply don't like the immutable morals of religion and would instead endorse more of a free market of belief systems where discussion, criticism, and peer review are better supported.

BTW, you might actually be able to find a more moral theist than Mother Theresa. After reading some Hitchens, watching a Penn and Teller Bull!@#$ segment on her, and doing some other research it seems that she could very well have avoided saving millions from death because of her "obsession" with suffering and its ability to bring one closer to god.

btmagnetw

06-28-2007, 02:54 PM

find a children's book, replace santa/north pole/lumps of coal with god/heaven/burn in hell and see if anyone can tell it wasn't originally a religious work. this works with anything, including witchcraft.

luckyme

06-28-2007, 03:24 PM

I've been re-reading "Europe, a History" by Norman Davis. Really reading it properly for the 1st time because my 1st reading was more at the novel-reading level. A recent passage covered superstition and religion in the middle ages. I don't have the book here, but Davis made two points that I can remember - one was the much lower level of importance of religion in the lower levels of society than we tend to think and the other was the elevated level of importance/power of various superstitions.

My take would be at that time ( Middle Ages in Europe), it would be much easier to see the similarities between those two subjects than it is today, even though the similarities are still there.

It's certainly not a metaphor for religion, it is a related species, the argument would be how related.

luckyme

vhawk01

06-28-2007, 04:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Despite being an atheist, I am usually annoyed when religion is called superstition. Not because it's not technically true, it is, but because its a misguided rhetorical device.

When religion is called superstition, it is always for the purpose of discrediting it. But their are plenty of religious people who are wonderful, both personally and in their social beliefs. Calling religion superstition over estimates the damage from religion, and underestimates the damage from materialist beliefs (materialism as philosophy, not consumption).

Compare the good work done for the poor by liberation theology, and the bad work by the atheist materialists of the Khmer Rouge.

When someone calls religion superstition, it's a sure sign that they have an arrogant belief in the moral superiority of rationalism. But compare the materialists Stalin and Pol Pot to Mother Teresa, and you see that there is NOTHING inherently moral about materialism. Materialists are prone to all the same stupid mistakes of politics and nationalism, they just rationalize them differently.

Dawkins should go after the materialist British Labor Party for its senseless war in Iraq, and leave the Fellowship of Reconciliation types out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the most part I agree with your post here. It just reminded me of a point I've been thinking about that I haven't made here before.

Why are the people who claim evolution is a religion and rationalism is a religion always the first to trot out the Stalin and Hitler defense when the argument goes to the "damage caused by religion," as you've put it. Surely Stalinism and Nazism and these other 'atheist' groups are FAR more similar to a religion than the evolution gang. In fact, it isn't religion at ALL that we are talking about with this "damage caused" idea, its this fanatical, irrational, dogmatic totalitarianism that we are talking about. Stalin is every bit as good of an example of what we are talking about as Torquemada. Religion is the square, this greater evil is the rectangle.

Just for clarity's sake, I'm not saying all religions are violent tyrannies akin to Stalinist USSR. The majority of the time, the majority of religious groups are doing more good than harm. Probably. I'm not even a big fan of this argument anyhow...religion should stand or fall on its own merits, not because it is beneficial or harmful. It is just the unimpeachable and unquestioned authority that religion embodies that is important.

luckyme

06-28-2007, 06:28 PM

Lestat

06-28-2007, 06:42 PM

Intersting posts by yourself and niffe, but I'm obviously missing something.

What's any of this got to do with religion being like any other superstition, folk lore, or wive's tale, and that Bill Haywood is most assuredly wrong about my motive/intention for stating so?

Bill Haywood

06-28-2007, 07:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bill Haywood is most assuredly wrong about my motive/intention for stating so?

[/ QUOTE ]

You also asked:

[ QUOTE ]
is such respect deserved? To me it's the epitome of irony that a Christian can laugh at an astrologist with a straight face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that you do not see religion as primitive and backward and a subject for derision? And are drawing merely a technical connection between Methodists and witchcraft? If so, I stand corrected.

vhawk wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Surely Stalinism and Nazism and these other 'atheist' groups are FAR more similar to a religion

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear this a lot, and I consider it a definitions game. When materialists do good works, it is defined as rational and super. When materialists do bad works, it is redefined as actually being religious.

Well, when you define the terms that way, you can't lose the argument. It's like religionists saying that if priests molest children, it is not the fault of the church culture, its the influence of the devil. It's a cop out. This approach makes one group (materialists) superior by definition, rather than by what they do. I could just as easily say that when materialists use science for bad, they are following materialism, but when they do good, they've subconsciously listened to an angel.

When you look at materialism and religion as social discourses, produced by living communities, the separation falls apart. 60 years ago, mainstream scientists, following standards of the day, were certain of the superiority of the white race and used all kinds of flawed evidence to prove it. This field of scientific racism was quite important in enabling the Holocaust. Sure, you can say that when Nazi scientists did this, they were acting as religionists, not materialists. But that lets them off the hook for what they did. As a community participating in a discourse, materialists have done all sorts of rotten things. As a community, I do not see them as more moral and less prone to nationalist excess than theistic communities.

My fundamental point is that materialists are so easily prone to mob mentalities and atrocities (the Neocons come to mind) that any alleged social superiority over theists is obviated.

And to the person who said Mother Teresa was really a biitch, I agree -- she was a hasty example. How about Florence Nightingale?

vhawk01

06-28-2007, 10:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Intersting posts by yourself and niffe, but I'm obviously missing something.

What's any of this got to do with religion being like any other superstition, folk lore, or wive's tale, and that Bill Haywood is most assuredly wrong about my motive/intention for stating so?

[/ QUOTE ]

My points had nothing to do with the OP, and only a little to do with the post I was responding to, Bill Haywood's. It was just something thats been bothering me for a while and his post reminded me of it.

tpir

06-29-2007, 02:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When someone calls religion superstition, it's a sure sign that they have an arrogant belief in the moral superiority of rationalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is this based on? I go with rationalism because it appears to work better than the alternatives. If it stopped working or supernatural stuff started going down, people would adapt or just throw in the towel.

The big problem in these types of discussions is the word "religion" being used to mean a bunch of different things. My feelings towards life/existence would be considered very religIOUS even though I think religION is absurd. There is a big difference. Let's not equivocate!

Bill Haywood

06-29-2007, 03:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When someone calls religion superstition, it's a sure sign that they have an arrogant belief in the moral superiority of rationalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is this based on? I go with rationalism because it appears to work better than the alternatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not arguing that science does not "work better" at describing reality. I'm saying that the moral choices materialists and theists make are not better or worse.

As clear thinking, and gaining the most accurate picture of physical reality as possible, yes, materialism is still superior. That's why I'm a materialist. But I see no reason to think atheist-materialists are kinder, or less prone to national chauvinism. Certainly not in practice (Pol Pot), and even in theory, I don't see why materialists would be more humane.

Who would you rather have decide whether to give you the death penalty, someone with no discernible spiritual beliefs like Henry Kissinger, or Father Berrigan? Or to take an example of a kind atheist and a vicious theist, Carl Sagan or Pat Robertson? The spiritual beliefs of these individuals is pretty irrelevant to whether you get the chair or not.

If it helps any, my skepticism of the superior humanity of materialist intellectuals is influenced most by Chomsky and Foucault. They show very well the extent to which scientific rationalism can be used for cruel ends, and the extent to which ideas serve power rather than truth.

niffe9

06-29-2007, 03:52 PM

There can be a case made that materialism is better positioned for better morals than theists. This comes in the form of positing more of a free market for morality. I come from the school that altruism is in our genes(by being nice to others you can give yourself membership into mutually beneficial groups). By pragmatism and common sense, man has come to certain morals like slavery is bad (if you do not believe this was a pragmatic change in morals than my point is moot). Religion did not give us this moral. It slowly came to be as people realized that slaves are essentially the same as their masters and humans want to promote a society where a human does not have to be a slave(a choice with ultimately selfish interests). It can be argued that theism hampered this moral change because it articulates morals as something divined from god in sacred books (immutable).

Bill Haywood

06-29-2007, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There can be a case made that materialism is better positioned for better morals than theists.... By pragmatism and common sense, man has come to certain morals like slavery is bad.... people realized that slaves are essentially the same as their masters

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting attempt, but it does not jibe with what I know about abolition in the US. Abolitionists were usually very religious (John Brown). Both slave holders and abolitionists based their arguments on scripture. The Civil War itself was more about imperial power than sympathy for slaves.

Further, the most elaborate scientific attempts to prove Africans were not "essentially the same" came after slavery was over. There's not much of a correlation between the end of slavery and a decline of racism. In fact, it is a negative correlation in the scientific field.

Like religion, rationalism can easily be used for different ends. If your goal is superiority of yourself and subjugation of others, then slavery can be a rational choice. And slavery based on race is a very pragmatic way of organizing and protecting the institution.

I'd like to believe that materialism makes us atheists more more humane, but I haven't seen anything persuasive.

niffe9

06-29-2007, 05:26 PM

We both agree that we can use whatever belief system we have to justify our actions, good or bad (with respect to the sense of pragmatic, common sense morals discussed earlier). Again I would like to point how I think materialists might be better suited to form a free market of beliefs where morality can flourish. Theists may be more likely to bully and use cult-like tactics to spread morality (follow these ten commandements or else, many religions like scientology spread their ideas in cult-like ways). Materialists by nature are more prone to criticize and form morals in a more objective manner. They are perhaps less likely to submit to the morals of others or some higher power and more likely to decide for themselves what they think is moral. In my opinion, morality is almost organic and can change at any time. The materialist is more likely to constantly reevaluate their morals to align with what they want in life.
I'm willing to admit that the two ideas may be only slightly tangentially correlated.

Bill Haywood

06-29-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They are perhaps less likely to submit to the morals of others or some higher power and more likely to decide for themselves what they think is moral.

[/ QUOTE ] and paraphrasing, presumably act more humanely through rationalism.

That's interesting conjecture, but how are you going to demonstrate it empirically? I see mountains of good and evil committed on all sides. How could one demonstrate that down through history, from a Phoenician child smacking his sister, to Pol Pot's rampage, that materialists have been 59% good, but theists only 54%? That strikes me as a completely unmanageable mass of data. Even if you arrive at a measure -- 41 million corpses killed by materialists, 46 million by theists -- is that really very enlightening?

I stick with the more modest conclusion: neither theists nor materialists have been shown to act more humanely, each are easily capable of the full range of behaviors, good and bad.

And guys like Dawkins are going to base a humanitarian transformation of the world based on unmeasurably narrow differences between philosophies? I don't think the limited differences in them can have that much impact on the material world. Any regional conflict is so complex and embedded in deep history that no lectures from British scholars are going to revolutionize them. Dawkins needs to go back to the materialism of Marx, who understood that ideologies cannot be changed presto, because they are embedded in material and economic realities, and serve them. Even Gramsci, who afforded much more latitude to the importance of beliefs, still situated ideology in a class context.

Neither theism nor atheism provide appreciably better guides to political action -- so the marketplace of ideas will be unable to choose. Both brands will remain, and continue to be used for all purposes.

Lestat

06-29-2007, 06:58 PM

I'd like to believe that materialism makes us atheists more more humane, but I haven't seen anything persuasive. 

I have to agree with this (that there is no real discernable differece in morality between atheists and theists). But isn't this evidence that morality is subjective and doesn't eminate from some central source or divine entity?

luckyme

06-29-2007, 08:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to believe that materialism makes us atheists more more humane, but I haven't seen anything persuasive. 

I have to agree with this (that there is no real discernable differece in morality between atheists and theists). But isn't this evidence that morality is subjective and doesn't eminate from some central source or divine entity?

[/ QUOTE ]

The big difference is that theists tend work at the level of 'rules' and atheists tend to work at the level of 'principles'. This traps theists into digging up a rule and applying it to situations that aren't the same as the one the rule may be meant to cover, it just has similarities.

Theists can reach so horribly wrong moral places and not have a way out because of that 'moral by rules' weakness.

On a day-to-day basis, no, you couldn't tell a random theist from a random atheists by their moral choices. But at certain crunch times, you'll be able to.

luckyme

Taraz

06-29-2007, 08:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The big difference is that theists tend work at the level of 'rules' and atheists tend to work at the level of 'principles'. This traps theists into digging up a rule and applying it to situations that aren't the same as the one the rule may be meant to cover, it just has similarities.

Theists can reach so horribly wrong moral places and not have a way out because of that 'moral by rules' weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sooo true. I think I'm going to steal this idea from you from now on. Well said.

PairTheBoard

06-29-2007, 09:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The big difference is that theists tend work at the level of 'rules' and atheists tend to work at the level of 'principles'. This traps theists into digging up a rule and applying it to situations that aren't the same as the one the rule may be meant to cover, it just has similarities.

Theists can reach so horribly wrong moral places and not have a way out because of that 'moral by rules' weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sooo true. I think I'm going to steal this idea from you from now on. Well said.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the radical departure Jesus made from the way of "The Law". He broke from the Rule Based system of Jewish Law to a Spirit Based life guided by principles he taught in the golden rule, parbables, and the sermon on the mount. Those are the principles by which a Christian tries to live. What "principle" guides the ethics of the atheist other than "self interest"?

PairTheBoard

Taraz

06-29-2007, 10:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The big difference is that theists tend work at the level of 'rules' and atheists tend to work at the level of 'principles'. This traps theists into digging up a rule and applying it to situations that aren't the same as the one the rule may be meant to cover, it just has similarities.

Theists can reach so horribly wrong moral places and not have a way out because of that 'moral by rules' weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sooo true. I think I'm going to steal this idea from you from now on. Well said.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the radical departure Jesus made from the way of "The Law". He broke from the Rule Based system of Jewish Law to a Spirit Based life guided by principles he taught in the golden rule, parbables, and the sermon on the mount. Those are the principles by which a Christian tries to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately many Christians are returning to the rule-based morality that you claim Jesus was trying to improve upon. I suspect it's not as many as most atheists believe, but it's an alarming trend.

[ QUOTE ]

What "principle" guides the ethics of the atheist other than "self interest"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious for this one? Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that you can't recognize that certain principles are good ones to live by.

Personally, I have a lot of principles that I try to live by:
- Don't be prejudiced
- Independent investigation of truth
- The golden rule
- loyalty, responsibility, integrity, generosity, etc.

I guess I'm not a standard atheist though. I prefer to think of myself as an agnostic, but that supposedly means I'm a coward who's afraid to take a stance.

Bill Haywood

06-29-2007, 10:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Theists can reach so horribly wrong moral places and not have a way out because of that 'moral by rules' weakness.

On a day-to-day basis, no, you couldn't tell a random theist from a random atheists by their moral choices. But at certain crunch times, you'll be able to.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is logically compelling. But can you give an example of one of these crunch times? I'm doubtful.

Pairtheboard's comment reinforces my stance that any proper moral decision by an atheist can also be arrived at by a flexible theist. I'm open to persuasion because it would be a point for my team, but I'd be surprised.

Hell, even harsh fundies like Pat Robertson can make remarkable contortions in theology when it suits their purpose, so I feel sure kind types like Rev. William Sloan Coffin can also adapt to any moral imperative.

Further, the "moral by rules" cage is no less rigid than any materialist bars can be. Talk to most any 19 year old Trotskyite for an earful of dogma.

PairTheBoard

06-29-2007, 11:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What "principle" guides the ethics of the atheist other than "self interest"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious for this one? Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that you can't recognize that certain principles are good ones to live by.

Personally, I have a lot of principles that I try to live by:
- Don't be prejudiced
- Independent investigation of truth
- The golden rule
- loyalty, responsibility, integrity, generosity, etc.

I guess I'm not a standard atheist though. I prefer to think of myself as an agnostic, but that supposedly means I'm a coward who's afraid to take a stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think such principles are part of our heritage. They are echos of our religious past. What I see going forward is people scoffing at ideas like "Honor". Witness the recent "Parasite Dilemma" thread where people were puzzled by the idea that they would keep their word once it is given. What's wrong with cheating? What's wrong with lying? Self interest is everything.

PairTheBoard

vhawk01

06-30-2007, 12:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There can be a case made that materialism is better positioned for better morals than theists.... By pragmatism and common sense, man has come to certain morals like slavery is bad.... people realized that slaves are essentially the same as their masters

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting attempt, but it does not jibe with what I know about abolition in the US. Abolitionists were usually very religious (John Brown). Both slave holders and abolitionists based their arguments on scripture. The Civil War itself was more about imperial power than sympathy for slaves.

Further, the most elaborate scientific attempts to prove Africans were not "essentially the same" came after slavery was over. There's not much of a correlation between the end of slavery and a decline of racism. In fact, it is a negative correlation in the scientific field.

Like religion, rationalism can easily be used for different ends. If your goal is superiority of yourself and subjugation of others, then slavery can be a rational choice. And slavery based on race is a very pragmatic way of organizing and protecting the institution.

I'd like to believe that materialism makes us atheists more more humane, but I haven't seen anything persuasive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Abolitionits were certainly mostly religious. Slave-owners were far more religious. The only secular voices came down on the side of abolition. Sort of an example of the "good men doing evil requires religion" thing, if you ask me.

vhawk01

06-30-2007, 12:21 AM

vhawk01

06-30-2007, 12:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The big difference is that theists tend work at the level of 'rules' and atheists tend to work at the level of 'principles'. This traps theists into digging up a rule and applying it to situations that aren't the same as the one the rule may be meant to cover, it just has similarities.

Theists can reach so horribly wrong moral places and not have a way out because of that 'moral by rules' weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sooo true. I think I'm going to steal this idea from you from now on. Well said.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the radical departure Jesus made from the way of "The Law". He broke from the Rule Based system of Jewish Law to a Spirit Based life guided by principles he taught in the golden rule, parbables, and the sermon on the mount. Those are the principles by which a Christian tries to live.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately many Christians are returning to the rule-based morality that you claim Jesus was trying to improve upon. I suspect it's not as many as most atheists believe, but it's an alarming trend.

[ QUOTE ]

What "principle" guides the ethics of the atheist other than "self interest"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious for this one? Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that you can't recognize that certain principles are good ones to live by.

Personally, I have a lot of principles that I try to live by:
- Don't be prejudiced
- Independent investigation of truth
- The golden rule
- loyalty, responsibility, integrity, generosity, etc.

I guess I'm not a standard atheist though. I prefer to think of myself as an agnostic, but that supposedly means I'm a coward who's afraid to take a stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

All 4 of those are really just wordy versions of "naked self-interest." The golden rule isn't even a camouflaged version.

vhawk01

06-30-2007, 12:24 AM

GoodCallYouWin

06-30-2007, 04:02 AM

"
This is exactly the radical departure Jesus made from the way of "The Law". He broke from the Rule Based system of Jewish Law to a Spirit Based life guided by principles he taught in the golden rule, parbables, and the sermon on the mount. Those are the principles by which a Christian tries to live. What "principle" guides the ethics of the atheist other than "self interest"?"

The same things that guide the interests and ethics of theists. Fundamentally, people don't hit other people because they're christians; in fact christians hit just as many people as non christians.

Taraz

06-30-2007, 05:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What "principle" guides the ethics of the atheist other than "self interest"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious for this one? Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that you can't recognize that certain principles are good ones to live by.

Personally, I have a lot of principles that I try to live by:
- Don't be prejudiced
- Independent investigation of truth
- The golden rule
- loyalty, responsibility, integrity, generosity, etc.

I guess I'm not a standard atheist though. I prefer to think of myself as an agnostic, but that supposedly means I'm a coward who's afraid to take a stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think such principles are part of our heritage. They are echos of our religious past.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they are part of our religious past doesn't mean that all atheists abandon them. Some of us realize that religion has some positive things to offer.

[ QUOTE ]
What I see going forward is people scoffing at ideas like "Honor". Witness the recent "Parasite Dilemma" thread where people were puzzled by the idea that they would keep their word once it is given. What's wrong with cheating? What's wrong with lying? Self interest is everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kind of a dishonest representation of what went on in that thread. The way you set up the question you framed it as a purely economic question and didn't talk about a real world scenario. In that thread many people conceded that if you changed the premise so that it was more realistic they would have changed their answers.

Basically you asked the question in a strict sense with very narrow costs and benefits and then you were surprised when people answered based on only those factors that you mentioned.

Taraz

06-30-2007, 05:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you serious for this one? Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that you can't recognize that certain principles are good ones to live by.

Personally, I have a lot of principles that I try to live by:
- Don't be prejudiced
- Independent investigation of truth
- The golden rule
- loyalty, responsibility, integrity, generosity, etc.

I guess I'm not a standard atheist though. I prefer to think of myself as an agnostic, but that supposedly means I'm a coward who's afraid to take a stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

All 4 of those are really just wordy versions of "naked self-interest." The golden rule isn't even a camouflaged version.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that may be true in the strictest sense, they communicate more than "self-interest". I don't want to get into the whole altruistic debate in this thread, but let's say I grant you that point. If I teach a child to live only by the principle of "naked self-interest" it will take him a while to realize that all the principles above lead to this self-interest.

You're really nitpicking this point. I'm just conveying what I actually try to keep in mind as I go through life.

(I would debate the "everything we do is selfish" claim, but I think I went over it in that other thread last week. Suffice it to say, that if everyone acts selfishly, then this 'self-interest' talk doesn't really mean anything.)

Taraz

06-30-2007, 05:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Pairtheboard's comment reinforces my stance that any proper moral decision by an atheist can also be arrived at by a flexible theist. I'm open to persuasion because it would be a point for my team, but I'd be surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

I most definitely agree with this. It's just sad that so many theists think that they aren't allowed to be flexible.

MidGe

06-30-2007, 05:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How apt do people find this comparison?

[/ QUOTE ]

Witchcraft is a religion! Ask any of their adherents. To me it is in essence no different from any other religion that brings "supernatural" into the equation that one's own existence and consciousness may trigger and therfore the topic is wrong in calling it a metaphor.

vhawk01

06-30-2007, 05:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you serious for this one? Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that you can't recognize that certain principles are good ones to live by.

Personally, I have a lot of principles that I try to live by:
- Don't be prejudiced
- Independent investigation of truth
- The golden rule
- loyalty, responsibility, integrity, generosity, etc.

I guess I'm not a standard atheist though. I prefer to think of myself as an agnostic, but that supposedly means I'm a coward who's afraid to take a stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

All 4 of those are really just wordy versions of "naked self-interest." The golden rule isn't even a camouflaged version.

[/ QUOTE ]

While that may be true in the strictest sense, they communicate more than "self-interest". I don't want to get into the whole altruistic debate in this thread, but let's say I grant you that point. If I teach a child to live only by the principle of "naked self-interest" it will take him a while to realize that all the principles above lead to this self-interest.

You're really nitpicking this point. I'm just conveying what I actually try to keep in mind as I go through life.

(I would debate the "everything we do is selfish" claim, but I think I went over it in that other thread last week. Suffice it to say, that if everyone acts selfishly, then this 'self-interest' talk doesn't really mean anything.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree that I am being a giant nit.

RJT

06-30-2007, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
…To me it's the epitome of irony that a Christian can laugh at an astrologist with a straight face…

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I true Christian doesn’t laugh at anyone.

RJT

06-30-2007, 02:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What "principle" guides the ethics of the atheist other than "self interest"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious for this one? Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that you can't recognize that certain principles are good ones to live by.

Personally, I have a lot of principles that I try to live by:
- Don't be prejudiced
- Independent investigation of truth
- The golden rule
- loyalty, responsibility, integrity, generosity, etc.

I guess I'm not a standard atheist though. I prefer to think of myself as an agnostic, but that supposedly means I'm a coward who's afraid to take a stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think such principles are part of our heritage. They are echos of our religious past. What I see going forward is people scoffing at ideas like "Honor". Witness the recent "Parasite Dilemma" thread where people were puzzled by the idea that they would keep their word once it is given. What's wrong with cheating? What's wrong with lying? Self interest is everything.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

So sad to see Aristotle thrown into the Jesus camp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, St. Thomas Aquinas had some nerve?

luckyme

06-30-2007, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
…To me it's the epitome of irony that a Christian can laugh at an astrologist with a straight face…

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I true Christian doesn’t laugh at anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if he's also a scotsman?

luckyme

RJT

06-30-2007, 07:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
…To me it's the epitome of irony that a Christian can laugh at an astrologist with a straight face…

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I true Christian doesn’t laugh at anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if he's also a scotsman?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t get it, luckyme. You mean Scots are kinda stoic? Yeah, then a Scot who is a good Christian doesn’t laugh much. Poor fellow.

(BTW, I obviously meant to type “a true Christian”, not “I true Christian”. And not even close to a Freudian slip.)

luckyme

06-30-2007, 07:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
…To me it's the epitome of irony that a Christian can laugh at an astrologist with a straight face…

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I true Christian doesn’t laugh at anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if he's also a scotsman?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t get it, luckyme. You mean Scots are kinda stoic? Yeah, then a Scot who is a good Christian doesn’t laugh much. Poor fellow.

(BTW, I obviously meant to type “a true Christian”, not “I true Christian”. And not even close to a Freudian slip.)

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, I wasn't up to anything clever, merely a jab in the ribs over your "no real scotsman" fallacy. nothing serious,

luckyme

RJT

06-30-2007, 07:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
…To me it's the epitome of irony that a Christian can laugh at an astrologist with a straight face…

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I true Christian doesn’t laugh at anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if he's also a scotsman?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t get it, luckyme. You mean Scots are kinda stoic? Yeah, then a Scot who is a good Christian doesn’t laugh much. Poor fellow.

(BTW, I obviously meant to type “a true Christian”, not “I true Christian”. And not even close to a Freudian slip.)

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, I wasn't up to anything clever, merely a jab in the ribs over your "no real scotsman" fallacy. nothing serious,

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have me confused wiht another poster. Or I forgot what I said in the past. Either way, your allusion makes sense to me now.