The death of civilized discussion

In my case I'm informed by the culture I grew up in and certainly religion had an influence, mostly bad.
Since then I've traveled and read extensively, which has enabled me to develop my own paradigm and values.
Probably cherry picking, but from Christianity I got the love thy neighbour bit, but reject the narrow minded judgemental bits. The eastern religions contributed some of my calm stuff. I abhor Islam and could find nothing for me there.
Lots of other cultures have good stuff that we westerners lack, as they also lack stuff that we have. I expect my views will still be in flux on my death bed.

Relax wrote:So, you believe religion/culture do not form the basis of your world view...



I knew I was talking to the funny farm, but dang...

Athiesm, by definition, is the absence of belief in a higher power.
Religion, by definition, is the belief in a higher power.

You literally cannot equate the two that way Relax.

Which kind of destroys your whole point.
But to further disabuse you of civilization == the dominant religion is the civilizations that changed their dominant religion.
Rome comes to mind.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Athiesm, by definition, is the absence of belief in a higher power.
Religion, by definition, is the belief in a higher power.

Technically speaking, Atheism can be argued to be a religious position since it is a denial of a higher power*.
For absence of belief, the term is Agnostic.

*If an Athiest did not believe, he/she would not bother to deny.

Michael Everett wrote:

Annachie wrote:Athiesm, by definition, is the absence of belief in a higher power.
Religion, by definition, is the belief in a higher power.

Technically speaking, Atheism can be argued to be a religious position since it is a denial of a higher power*.
For absence of belief, the term is Agnostic.

*If an Athiest did not believe, he/she would not bother to deny.

I would contend that both Atheists and Deists require faith, since both positions cannot be proven. Agnostics believe as they do, but do not use faith. So while all three believe there positions are true, only the Agnostic eschews faith to achieve that belief.

Peter, aren't you just redefining terms to confirm with your point of view, then claiming it shows your point of view to be correct based on those redefined terms?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Keep in mind that the credence, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why the USA government was setup the way it was. To hinder those seeking power for the sake of power as much as possible.
_______________________________________________________

Atheism by definition means there is no higher power than oneself. If there is no higher power than oneself, then what oneself believes to be true or law IS true and law. Since most humans do not like anarchy, and since there is no higher power, atheists conclude/believe that government is the only way to corral their base natures. They aren't idiots, they understand fundamentally, they are flawed and have greeds, lusts, etc just as any other human does. Therefore the only true law is the credo of 51% in any given group of people making them a "moral society".

Lets just take Christians as a group for instance. They believe there is a higher authority than man they are all subject to. They believe that each individual is responsible for their actions to God. Therefore government is there to give society structure but is not preeminent moral authority. Remember the top credo? Therefore to diminish humans tendency for abusing power and greed leading to corruption, government should be small.

So, from the Atheist point of view, a moral society is one firmly governed by the 51% voting/residing in government. To the Christian, a moral society is on an individual level and government is just a power structure that ultimately is corrupt because those who seek out "work" in government are there to seek power which in and of itself corrupts them. So, one says, the larger government is the more moral a society is as it is more "encompassing" all aspects of society and the 51%; the other? Says while government is a useful tool it has nothing to do with morality of a society and leads directly to corruption of society at large by those seeking power.

So, Atheists believe government is the arbiter of moral authority and Christians do not. This leads to a direct confrontation in several key issues.

Take the modern hot topic of gay marriage for instance. Can you tell who is gay from outward appearance? No. Most Christians say it is wrong on a personal level, but ultimately you cannot do anything about it as what is in mans heart is their own problem subject to God, not man.

If pressed, most Christians will say government has nothing to do with marriage at all. Rather God sanctifies the marriage. Not government. A marriage certificate is nothing but a way for the government to make some easy money. To the atheist, their moral arbiter is themselves and the government so they will be in the 51%. So for them justification for their position, gay marriage is a "rights" issue as defined by governmental law being preeminent.

Settling the issue is really simple. Abolish government marriage certificates. One less thing to waste money on and divide a country over. Besides, common law already states if you live together for 3-7years, be it man/woman, man/man woman/woman, ultimately the "estate" becomes common unless there is clear evidence otherwise.

Another issue:
So, Athists almost universally believe in the welfare state whereas almost universally Christians do not. This has many many implications economically, socially, and governmentally all way too long to list here. Ultimately it boils down to, big government saves your stupidity as it is the moral authority, compared to personal charity. Government, where all are treated "equally" even though we all know, NO, we are not all equal with equal problems. Charity on the other hand not only improves the persons life giving the charity, but also creating a personal contact to those in need who have problems different than your own ultimately leading to greater understanding of the world and improved care for those in need. Their needs are being taken care of at the personal individual level instead of the faceless governmental level.

Wow Relax, so many errors.

Firstly, marriage predates christianity.
It predates Abrahamic religions.
It predates most religions you could name.

Gay marriage predates christianity.
It seems it also predates most religions you could name.

The churches got involved in marriage because the churches tried to get involved in every aspect of human life for control and power over them. (People will argue that it is much like what governments do these days, with some validity to that arguement too)

Marriage was really about inheritance and diplomacy.

Christians, real christians as opposed to the followers of Republican Christ, also believe in a welfare state.
They know, like anyone who has bothered to look, that it is only by govefnment fiat that most wealthy individuals will donate to support the poorer/less fortunate members of society. That would be the meek.
The wealthy overwhelmingly donate to causes that help their own part of society.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Thanks for saving me a lot of typing. Great answer.
I'd add one more point. Not sure if I'm an atheist or an agnostic, but I don't regard government automatically as the arbiter of civilised behavious, although I generally am law abiding.
It's been a funny journey, but in my youth I was regarded as a radical and possibly a danger to polite society. Later in life I ended up spending much work time writing federal government laws, acts and regulations.
I wish I'd kept the front page newspaper article from 1970 condemning me for leading student protests seeking condom vending machines on our uni campus.
In summary I obviously don't believe in a creator having a blueprint on perfect behaviour and ethics, and know from personal experience that government is run by fallible people.

Annachie wrote:Wow Relax, so many errors.

Firstly, marriage predates christianity.
It predates Abrahamic religions.
It predates most religions you could name.

Gay marriage predates christianity.
It seems it also predates most religions you could name.

The churches got involved in marriage because the churches tried to get involved in every aspect of human life for control and power over them. (People will argue that it is much like what governments do these days, with some validity to that arguement too)

Marriage was really about inheritance and diplomacy.

Christians, real christians as opposed to the followers of Republican Christ, also believe in a welfare state.
They know, like anyone who has bothered to look, that it is only by govefnment fiat that most wealthy individuals will donate to support the poorer/less fortunate members of society. That would be the meek.
The wealthy overwhelmingly donate to causes that help their own part of society.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Peter, aren't you just redefining terms to confirm with your point of view, then claiming it shows your point of view to be correct based on those redefined terms?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Faith is defined as firm belief in the absence of proof. Atheism is a belief structure that hasn't been proven. Atheism requires faith. The same applies for Deists. This is logically true. One branch of Agnostic does require faith; that branch that asserts God's existence is unknowable. That assertion may in the future be proven false and requires faith to hold. The weaker variation that simply asserts a lack of knowledge is logically true without requiring faith.

So, no, I redefine nothing. I simply sate definitions and construct a logical chain.

My original post was concerned with the dearth of polite discussion, and I see that I was right to worry. The most contentious topic possible quickly came up, and unsupported assumptions have been put forward about people who hold various points of view. Home-brewed "definitions" have been argued and sophistry masquerades as logic. Nevertheless, I'll try this one.

I will accept that some people believe in a supreme being and some do not. Neither camp will be easily persuaded to change its mind. Therefore, there is little mileage in actually debating the existence of a supreme being, and the discussion should move on to how we interact in a world full of irreconcilable viewpoints.

I do not believe, and it's not because I haven't heard the believer's message. It simply does not convince me. I have no problem with believers (or non-believers) expounding their message, so long as they accept a polite "no thanks" from those who are not interested. I do not feel any need to take on the impossible task of proving a negative (Look up Russell's Teapot for more on this).

I am deeply concerned by efforts to base civil law on religious belief. The lines on this issue are blurred because some religious tenets make sense as civil law, while some do not. If anyone would like to debate specific instances of this, I am happy to do so from the position that civil law is meant to protect every citizen's right to live as they like so long as they do not infringe upon the same right for others.

Aside from law, an issue that interests me is the concept of the "moral compass". Up until a few hundred years ago, religions provided society with that compass. As was pointed out, non-believers are the fastest growing demographic in most modern societies. How do we define the "moral compass" now and going forward? I'm up for debating that, too.