Should atheism be suppressed?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

What about the classic example of the hero of the reformation, Martin Luther and his nasty racist piece of work:

"On the Jews and their Lies".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

Luther hated Jews and he preached in that book to hate and despise them.

Hmm, another well reasoned post. :rolleyes:

So maybe you would expand on why you think Martin Luther is a classic example of how science can experiment more when theistic restraints are removed?

I'm starting to understand your friends, Tim.

Cardinal

The very idea that something which could be called "christian morals" is a false one. The morals of christianity have changed so much with the times that they have few or no defining features which set them apart from whatever the generally accepted morals of the day are.
I'm not saying that christians have no morals, but that the moral standards of any given christian are far more a reflection of the time and place they are brought up in than of the religion to which they subscribe. The same can be said of any religion.
So, if morals don't come from religion, they must come from somewhere else, somewhere equally accessible to those without a religion.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

That's a ridiculous statement. I for one, certainly didn't inherit the morals of the crusades, the inquisition, the morals of the OT. My morals certainly didn't derive from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

Let's see.

The Inquisition believed that they were right and that therefore they should attack the beliefs of those who thought differently instead of showing them any toleration or respect.

The Inquisition were unable to admit that they were wrong, even when confronted with the truth.

The Inquisition showed a poor grasp of logic because their presuppositions made them determined to always come to a conclusion that supported their own position.

The Inquisition tried to debate with their opponents about the Bible, even though they were woefully ignorant of how to interpret the Bible.

The Inquisition resorted to personal abuse when they began to lose arguments.

Actually Tim, I think you've inherited an awful lot from the Inquisition.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

And...?

That didn't stop people in the Bible killing a lot of other people, and it certainly doesn't stop people who read the Bible killing a lot of other people.

Once again you are getting your morals the wrong way around.

If someone already believes that killing is morally wrong they can find a justification in the Bible to support this (God created all humans so like him so all humans should be treated equally).

But if someone believes that killing isn't morally wrong they can equally find a justification in the Bible to support this (God sent his chosen people out to destroy corrupt and evil peoples to make the land pure again. In fact more than once)

To a believer the Bible will always appear to support the morals they already have. Its one of the reasons its so appealing to some people

Its like one of those painting where the eyes seem to follow a person around the room so that no matter where they are standing it looks like the painting is looking at them.

If this was a debate about whether it's right to kill people or not, then your remarks would have some relevance.

However, we were discussing medical experimentation. In all the works of Church History I have ever read I have never heard of anyone, no matter how barmy, claiming that the Bible justifies using another human being for the purposes of medical experimentation. Yet Christians have routinely justified animal experimentation on the grounds that animals are not made in the image of God.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Hmm, another well reasoned post. :rolleyes:

So maybe you would expand on why you think Martin Luther is a classic example of how science can experiment more when theistic restraints are removed?

I'm starting to understand your friends, Tim.

Well let's revert to your argument:

Remove theistic ethical restraints and you can conduct forms of scientific research that you would otherwise be unable to conduct.

This is a cause and effect argument:
Cause: Removal of theistic ethical restraints
Effect: conduct forms of scientific research that you would otherwise be unable to conduct.

The problem with it of course is, what exactly are "theistic ethical restraints"?
Can they be objectively defined?
Well would you agree with the ethics of Luther or Calvin? Leaders and theological heros of the reformation? No.
So they can't be objectively defined. So you argument falls apart before it can even be analysed to see if you have a valid cause and effect or if you have a post hoc, ergo propter hoc and a logical fallacy.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

The Inquisition believed that they were right and that therefore they should attack the beliefs of those who thought differently instead of showing them any toleration or respect.

The Inquisition were unable to admit that they were wrong, even when confronted with the truth.

The Inquisition showed a poor grasp of logic because their presuppositions made them determined to always come to a conclusion that supported their own position.

The Inquisition tried to debate with their opponents about the Bible, even though they were woefully ignorant of how to interpret the Bible.

The Inquisition resorted to personal abuse when they began to lose arguments.

Actually Tim, I think you've inherited an awful lot from the Inquisition.

A ridiculous, pathetic piece of tripe. Only attacking me and nothing to do with my argument or this debate. How can you accuse me of "resorting to personal abuse" when that is all you have done yourself in that post?

Hopefully, the mods will be a bit more impartial this time round.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

If this was a debate about whether it's right to kill people or not, then your remarks would have some relevance.

However, we were discussing medical experimentation. In all the works of Church History I have ever read I have never heard of anyone, no matter how barmy, claiming that the Bible justifies using another human being for the purposes of medical experimentation. Yet Christians have routinely justified animal experimentation on the grounds that animals are not made in the image of God.

Well, let's see. Biblical justifications were certainly offered for slavery - particularly the curse of Ham - which allowed people what they perceived to be a Biblical justification for considering negroes sub-human. That assignment of sub-humanity in turn justified the use of negroes in medical experimentation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

A ridiculous, pathetic piece of tripe. Only attacking me and nothing to do with my argument or this debate. How can you accuse me of "resorting to personal abuse" when that is all you have done yourself in that post?

Hopefully, the mods will be a bit more impartial this time round.

But you brought your own personality into the debate. You said:

That's a ridiculous statement. I for one, certainly didn't inherit the morals of the crusades, the inquisition, the morals of the OT. My morals certainly didn't derive from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

If you wanted us to stick to the subject of the debate then why bring your own person and morality into the thread? Or, like your link about Luther, was it just a random thought unconnected with the debate and therefore not relevant for discussion?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

But you brought your own personality into the debate. You said:

If someone speaks about their own morals (i.e. not yours or anyone elses) in a context that is relevant (does atheism inherit morals from theology) you take it as justification to retort with some immature character assassination. Are you trying to say you know my own morals better than me? Or are you trying to shift the debate away from morals completly? The latter appears the case!

If you wanted us to stick to the subject of the debate then why bring your own person and morality into the thread? Or, like your link about Luther, was it just a random thought unconnected with the debate and therefore not relevant for discussion?

The link about Luther isn't just random. It's concerned with the context of theism, theology, morals and ethics. I posted another thread and detailed the relevance. Why don't you counter argue that instead of you just concluded it's "random" or "unconnected"?

Dades

PDN wrote:

Actually Tim, I think you've inherited an awful lot from the Inquisition.

Okay I thought this was somewhat uncalled for. I'm aware there's a history here, but lets try to stay on topic.

Behind all this there's a good thread going on. Neither myself nor the other users want to have to wade through it to find it - so lets all (PDN and TR) press our 'reset' buttons and address a relevant point.

I'll have this standing by.

PDN

The Atheist wrote:

Okay I thought this was somewhat uncalled for. I'm aware there's a history here, but lets try to stay on topic.

Behind all this there's a good thread going on. Neither myself nor the other users want to have to wade through it to find it - so lets all (PDN and TR) press our 'reset' buttons and address a relevant point.

I'll have this standing by.

I apologise for overstepping the mark and will take my rebuke without complaint.

My sense of humour does get me into trouble at times. I will endeavour to keep on subject.

PDN

PDN wrote:

Most atheists still retain a large amount of moralism that is inherited from theism.

Tim Robbins wrote:

That's a ridiculous statement. I for one, certainly didn't inherit the morals of the crusades, the inquisition, the morals of the OT. My morals certainly didn't derive from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

OK, on the advice of the moderators I should not respond to the morals that you personally have inherited. I have no wish for the Atheist to throw his bucket of water over me, so let's look at your argument.

First off, you reduce all theistic morality to the crusades, the inquisition, and the morals of the OT. But I can immediately think of one obvious area where most atheists' morality (I can't, obviously, say if you are one of them) was derived from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

As the Church gained power and became allied with the State (a most regrettable development, IMHO) theologians struggled with the Church's involvement in war. How did this square with the commandment not to kill. Were Christian leaders and soldiers going to suffer hellfire for the blood they shed on the battlefield? Some Kings would delay baptism until they were on their deathbed, believing that otherwise their post-baptismal sin of shedding blood in war would condemn them to an eternity in hell or an age in purgatory.

Therefore Augustine formulated the idea of a 'just war'. This was refined by Thomas Aquinas. He determined, on purely theological grounds, the kind of war in which church members could engage without incurring damnation (please note that I am describing a historical process, not necessarily agreeing with what these people thought or did. The first Christians were actually pacifists). Here are Aquinas' six criteria for a 'just war'.
1. War must be declared for a just cause.
2. War must be fought with a good intention.
3. There must be a reasonable expectation that more good than evil will result.
4. War must be waged by proportionate means (avoiding, as far as possible, civilian casualties).
5. War must be the last resort after exhausting other options.
6. War must be declared and fought by a legitimate authority.

Now, think about every debate you have ever heard about the American invasion of Iraq. Almost every point of argument (apart from a position of complete pacifism), by atheists or atheists alike, rests upon Aquinas' six hell-avoiding criteria.
"Were there WMDs?" (points 1 & 3)
"Hans Blix should have been given more time" (point 5)
"Surely it's a good thing that Saddam is gone?" (points 2 and 3)
"But more people have died now than would have under Saddam" (point 3)
"The Americans used cluster bombs" (point 4)
"The invasion was illegal" (point 6)
"It was all about oil" (point 2)

In fact Aquinas' six points, formed purely from a desire to avoid condemning 'Christian' soldiers to hell, have been incorporated wholesale and uncritically into the Geneva Convention and form the basis for much of the deliberations in the UN. It is a crystal clear example of atheists inheriting morality from theism - morality that was clearly derived from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

This is not unique. History contains many more such examples.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

This is not unique. History contains many more such examples.

The mistake you are making is asserting that these morality lessons originated from your religion. As I've said before, its actually the other way around. You need to go back further, and you will see that the morality lessons you talk about already existed long before your religion got started. Musings over what is a "just war" can be found in Roman debates and Chinese philosophy, all predating the New Testament by hundreds of years. Humans were thinking about what is considered a just war long before Jesus showed up

Augustine and Aquinas in fact had to go far afield to the pagan Romans and Greeks to find a large part of the morality and reason to embed in Christianity to give it any form of workable foundation.

The fact that this happened raises the question where did the morality come from, the Bible or the pagan religions that pre-dated the Bible?

The answer is both. As ever religion is formed around morality, not the other way around. The reason an atheists can agree with a lot of what theists consider morality unique to their religion is because the morality that underpins the religion is separate from the religion itself. This is why very different religions (eg the Pagan Greeks and Christians) can share very similar moral teachings.

The religion does not produce the morality, the morality produces the religion. And morality is a product of humanity

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

First off, you reduce all theistic morality to the crusades, the inquisition, and the morals of the OT.

You accuse me of reducing well that is what your argument is doing.

But I can immediately think of one obvious area where most atheists' morality (I can't, obviously, say if you are one of them) was derived from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

Au contraire, atheists don't have any notions about sentience or life after death but let's see what you are arguing and if you can show a moral being derived.

As the Church gained power and became allied with the State (a most regrettable development, IMHO) theologians struggled with the Church's involvement in war. How did this square with the commandment not to kill. Were Christian leaders and soldiers going to suffer hellfire for the blood they shed on the battlefield? Some Kings would delay baptism until they were on their deathbed, believing that otherwise their post-baptismal sin of shedding blood in war would condemn them to an eternity in hell or an age in purgatory.

Therefore Augustine formulated the idea of a 'just war'. This was refined by Thomas Aquinas. He determined, on purely theological grounds, the kind of war in which church members could engage without incurring damnation (please note that I am describing a historical process, not necessarily agreeing with what these people thought or did. The first Christians were actually pacifists). Here are Aquinas' six criteria for a 'just war'.
1. War must be declared for a just cause.
2. War must be fought with a good intention.
3. There must be a reasonable expectation that more good than evil will result.
4. War must be waged by proportionate means (avoiding, as far as possible, civilian casualties).
5. War must be the last resort after exhausting other options.
6. War must be declared and fought by a legitimate authority.

Now, think about every debate you have ever heard about the American invasion of Iraq. Almost every point of argument (apart from a position of complete pacifism), by atheists or atheists alike, rests upon Aquinas' six hell-avoiding criteria.
"Were there WMDs?" (points 1 & 3)
"Hans Blix should have been given more time" (point 5)
"Surely it's a good thing that Saddam is gone?" (points 2 and 3)
"But more people have died now than would have under Saddam" (point 3)
"The Americans used cluster bombs" (point 4)
"The invasion was illegal" (point 6)
"It was all about oil" (point 2)

In fact Aquinas' six points, formed purely from a desire to avoid condemning 'Christian' soldiers to hell, have been incorporated wholesale and uncritically into the Geneva Convention and form the basis for much of the deliberations in the UN. It is a crystal clear example of atheists inheriting morality from theism - morality that was clearly derived from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

No morality is a derivative of natural selection. A lot species have an increased probability of surviving if they work in groups. Group playing and organisation is a good thing and increases survival chance. Altruism is a derivative of this.
The Golden Rule, is in most major cultures and derived before Christianity, originally in Confucius. This would be evidence of our species developing a sophisticated concept of morality that is not particular to one culture or an arbitary theology.

Now you also cherry pick Augustine focussing only on his "Just War".
What about his morals on sex? Are you seriously trying to tell me atheists inherited them?
Doubt it.

Furthermore, if you are going to look at international aggrements, why not check the UN definition of genocide:

"any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:


* Killing members of the group
* Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
* Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
* Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
* Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group"

According to this God seems to have committed genocide several times in the Bible. It is therefore hard to argue we inherited the moral concept "genocide is bad" from theology or from abrhamic theology.

You reference to Iraq is even more chilling.
George's "inherited" rhetoric
"You are either with us or against us", certainly would suggest to me, we continue to challenge all dogmatic, theological and Christian morals be inherited or not.

This is not unique. History contains many more such examples.

Counter examples would suggest your hypotheisis should be refined to something like:
"perhaps some morals have been inherited from theology".

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

First off, you reduce all theistic morality to the crusades, the inquisition, and the morals of the OT.

You accuse me of reducing well that is what your argument is doing.

But I can immediately think of one obvious area where most atheists' morality (I can't, obviously, say if you are one of them) was derived from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

Au contraire, atheists don't have any nothings about after death but let's see what you are arguing was derived.

As the Church gained power and became allied with the State (a most regrettable development, IMHO) theologians struggled with the Church's involvement in war. How did this square with the commandment not to kill. Were Christian leaders and soldiers going to suffer hellfire for the blood they shed on the battlefield? Some Kings would delay baptism until they were on their deathbed, believing that otherwise their post-baptismal sin of shedding blood in war would condemn them to an eternity in hell or an age in purgatory.

Therefore Augustine formulated the idea of a 'just war'. This was refined by Thomas Aquinas. He determined, on purely theological grounds, the kind of war in which church members could engage without incurring damnation (please note that I am describing a historical process, not necessarily agreeing with what these people thought or did. The first Christians were actually pacifists). Here are Aquinas' six criteria for a 'just war'.
1. War must be declared for a just cause.
2. War must be fought with a good intention.
3. There must be a reasonable expectation that more good than evil will result.
4. War must be waged by proportionate means (avoiding, as far as possible, civilian casualties).
5. War must be the last resort after exhausting other options.
6. War must be declared and fought by a legitimate authority.

Now, think about every debate you have ever heard about the American invasion of Iraq. Almost every point of argument (apart from a position of complete pacifism), by atheists or atheists alike, rests upon Aquinas' six hell-avoiding criteria.
"Were there WMDs?" (points 1 & 3)
"Hans Blix should have been given more time" (point 5)
"Surely it's a good thing that Saddam is gone?" (points 2 and 3)
"But more people have died now than would have under Saddam" (point 3)
"The Americans used cluster bombs" (point 4)
"The invasion was illegal" (point 6)
"It was all about oil" (point 2)

In fact Aquinas' six points, formed purely from a desire to avoid condemning 'Christian' soldiers to hell, have been incorporated wholesale and uncritically into the Geneva Convention and form the basis for much of the deliberations in the UN. It is a crystal clear example of atheists inheriting morality from theism - morality that was clearly derived from the maxim that people can suffer external torment after death.

No morality is a derivative of natural selection. A lot species have an increased probability of surviving if the work in groups. Group playing is a good thing. Altruism is a derivative of this.
The Golden Rule, is in most major cultures and derived before Christianity, originally in Confucius. This would be evidence of our species developing a sophisticated concept of morality that is particular to one culture or arbitary theology.

Now you also cherry pick Augustine focussing only on his "Just War".
What about his morals on sex? Are you seriously trying to tell me atheists inherited them?

Furthermore, if you are going to look at international aggrements, why not check the UN definition of genocide:

"any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:


* Killing members of the group
* Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
* Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
* Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
* Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group"

According to this God seems to have committed genocide several times in the Bible. It is therefore hard to argue we inherited the moral concept "genocide is bad" from theology or from abrhamic theology.

You reference to Iraq is chilling.
George's "inherited" rhetoric
"You are either with us or against us", certainly would suggest to me, we challenge all dogma, theological or Christian morals be inherited or not.

This is not unique. History contains many more such examples.

Counter examples would suggest your hypotheisis should refined to something like:
"perhaps some morals have been inherited from theology".

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Now you also cherry pick Augustine focussing only on his "Just War".
What about his morals on sex? Are you seriously trying to tell me atheists inherited them?
Doubt it.

:rolleyes: I am showing you an example of how theistic morality is inherited by atheists. I am not endorsing everything Augustine taught, because much of what he taught is nonsense. Therefore trying to bring Augustine's views on sex into this discussion is nothing but a red herring.

Furthermore, if you are going to look at international aggrements, why not check the UN definition of genocide:

Again, another very heavy-handed red herring. This is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether atheists have inherited the principle of the just war from theism.

According to this God seems to have committed genocide several times in the Bible. It is therefore hard to argue we inherited the moral concept "genocide is bad" from theology or from abrhamic theology.

Could you please show where I have argued that? That makes three red herrings in one post.

You reference to Iraq is chilling.
George's "inherited" rhetoric
"You are either with us or against us", certainly would suggest to me, we challenge all dogma, theological or Christian morals be inherited or not.

My reference to Iraq is a practical example of how we apply ethics derived from theism to modern problems - something that happens in ethics classes every day of the week. As such it is only chilling if you somehow believe that Christians have no right to discuss such issues. As for George Bush's rhetoric - again it is totally unconnected with my point that the just war theory was derived from theistic morality. Four red herrings.

To produce four red herrings in one post is bad enough. To then post twice, making eight red herrings, is astounding.

Dades

Rather than counting fish, I wonder are there stats breaking down the religious/non-religious support for the US war in the Middle East...

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

The mistake you are making is asserting that these morality lessons originated from your religion.

No, I am asserting that these morality lessons were inherited from theistic moralism. I certainly make no claim of Augustine or Aquinas being totally original in thinking along these lines. That is your assumption and distortion of what I am saying.

It is historical fact that Aquinas refined his principles of the just war and it is in that same refined form that they have been incorporated into the Geneva Convention.

Wicknight wrote:

The fact that this happened raises the question where did the morality come from, the Bible or the pagan religions that pre-dated the Bible?

The answer is both.

Thank you! Since the pagan religions were theists, albeit of a different stripe, you are actually supporting my assertion that this morality is inherited from theism.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

No, I am asserting that these morality lessons were inherited from theistic moralism.

Ok, maybe you should define theistic moralism, because I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean morality from God?

PDN wrote:

It is historical fact that Aquinas refined his principles of the just war and it is in that same refined form that they have been incorporated into the Geneva Convention.

But none of that needs theism. this is clear by the fact that lots of different religions come up with the same moral frameworks. It clearly isn't the religion that is doing anything.

PDN wrote:

Thank you! Since the pagan religions were theists, albeit of a different stripe, you are actually supporting my assertion that this morality is inherited from theism.

But you are ignoring that they are all different theists following very different religions. Clearly it isn't the religion itself that is making these moral possible.

I'm reminded of the classic Simpsons episode with the Bear Patrol

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.




You are saying that these moral frameworks came about by people who were theists. Therefore they must be theists moral frameworks. But just like Lisa's tiger rock, that is simply linking two things and assuming that one is leading to the other, when in fact they aren't. This is possible to see by the fact that all the different theists religions come up with similar ideas, so clearly their particular brand of theism isn't doing anything unique.

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

But you are ignoring that they are all different theists following very different religions. Clearly it isn't the religion itself that is making these moral possible.

I concur. If morality is inherited from any number of religions - all of which (or 99.9% in the case for Christians) were created by man - then man must be the source of morality.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Could you please show where I have argued that? That makes three red herrings in one post.

My reference to Iraq is a practical example of how we apply ethics derived from theism to modern problems - something that happens in ethics classes every day of the week. As such it is only chilling if you somehow believe that Christians have no right to discuss such issues. As for George Bush's rhetoric - again it is totally unconnected with my point that the just war theory was derived from theistic morality. Four red herrings.

To produce four red herrings in one post is bad enough. To then post twice, making eight red herrings, is astounding.

Hillarious, all examples that may support (even if it is tenuous) your hypotheisis are relevant, all examples that clearly rebut it are red herrings.
Previously, the examples of Crusades, Inquisition and the work of Luther were reducing the debate. It would appear you don't consider evidence relevant unless it is congenial to your conclusion. Sounds very dogmatic and fundamentalist if you ask me.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Thank you! Since the pagan religions were theists, albeit of a different stripe, you are actually supporting my assertion that this morality is inherited from theism.

Soccer was originally played by theists, did we inherit Soccer from them to?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Soccer was originally played by theists, did we inherit Soccer from them to?

The question is "Is soccer a theist sport?"

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

The question is "Is soccer a theist sport?"

You certainly see a lot of soccer players and sports people still bless themselves and maybe if God didn't invent Grass we never be able to run around.
Did you think dancing is inherited from Theology as well?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

No, I am asserting that these morality lessons were inherited from theistic moralism. I certainly make no claim of Augustine or Aquinas being totally original in thinking along these lines. That is your assumption and distortion of what I am saying.

The impetus for Augustine's thinking was certainly Christian, but what in those concepts of a just war is Christian? If you are going to claim everything thought of by Christians as Christian in nature, do let us know...

PDN wrote:

Thank you! Since the pagan religions were theists, albeit of a different stripe, you are actually supporting my assertion that this morality is inherited from theism.

Again, were their criteria actually theistic? As the Classical Greeks believed in a rather gloomy and pointless afterlife, which was largely unavoidable in any case, it appears that they were unlikely to be motivated by the same worries you claim motivated Augustine - yet nevertheless they appear to have been motivated to consider the subject.

PDN wrote:

It is historical fact that Aquinas refined his principles of the just war and it is in that same refined form that they have been incorporated into the Geneva Convention.

Quite true. However, are you not using this historical fact to imply that Augustine's criteria are of Christian inspiration, or that the notion of a just war is Christian - neither of which are historically true.

If you are not claiming these, then all you seem to be able to state is that "Augustine was a theist, and we have our definition of a just war from him" - a rather different claim than that we "inherit our morals from theism".

Perhaps, whatever the dressing, it is a merely human thing to wish to feel justified in aggression...

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Hillarious, all examples that may support (even if it is tenuous) your hypotheisis are relevant, all examples that clearly rebut it are red herrings.
Previously, the examples of Crusades, Inquisition and the work of Luther were reducing the debate. It would appear you don't consider evidence relevant unless it is congenial to your conclusion. Sounds very dogmatic and fundamentalist if you ask me.

Let's take it slowly. How does anything that George Bush says have any bearing on the historical fact that Thomas Aquinas developed the principle of the just law, and that consequently atheists have inherited the just war concept and incororporated it into their morality?

Why does the fact that I cannot see the relevance of Bush to this point make me very dogmatic and fundamentalist?

Again, could you explain why it is "chilling" for me as a Christian (and one who opposed the American invasion of Iraq) to use that invasion as an example in a discussion on ethics. Do you find it chilling for anyone to use Iraq as an example? Or does the chill factor only apply to theists, to Christians, or to PDN alone?

Are you seriously arguing that because Augustine had some weird ideas about sex, then that must necessarily invalidate his role in developing the concept of a just war? If not, then what relevance has Augustine's teaching on sex got to do with this discussion? Does the mere mention of Augustine's name, like that of Luther, render you incapable of dealing with the issues under discussion?

Again, I have asked you to show me how I, or anyone else in this thread, has argued that the concept of genocide being bad is inherited from Abrahamic theology. So far you have not answered. Just calling my post 'Hillarious' (sic) is no substitute for rational debate.

skeptic griggsy

As Dawkins advocates, we ought to push atheism. Those who wield theistic power shudder that we would speak out against their superstition and their lording over us has ended.:cool:

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

The impetus for Augustine's thinking was certainly Christian, but what in those concepts of a just war is Christian? If you are going to claim everything thought of by Christians as Christian in nature, do let us know...

I am not claiming the concept of the Just War as 'Christian'. Let's put my posts in the context of this thread. The OP dealt with Plato's theistic (definitely not Christian) assertion that atheism is dangerous and should be suppressed. I, with yourself and others,participated in a good natured and humorous discussion. You said that freedom from religious ethical restraints allowed scientists to conduct new forms of research and experimentation. I agreed, and rather mischeviously suggested Josef Mengele as an example. This led to another poster protesting that not many atheists would share Mengele's views on ethics. My response was of course not, since "Most atheists still retain a large amount of moralism that is inherited from theism".

This led to a 'response' that it is ridiculous to say that atheists have inherited morality from theists. Therefore I am using the Just war Theory as an example. Of course theologians loom large in the history of the just war theory, but that is no way claiming the concept as Christian. I personally disagree with much of the Just War Theory.

Does that make things clearer?

Illuminatingly,

PDN

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

My response was of course not, since "Most atheists still retain a large amount of moralism that is inherited from theism".

I think the point that most people are trying to make to you is that this "moralism" wasn't actually theist.

It was simply human morality.

We didn't inherit anything from theism because it wasn't theist in the first place.

Which is where the soccer example game from. Just because Christians invented the modern game of soccer it would make little sense to say that people inherit the game from Christianity.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I am not claiming the concept of the Just War as 'Christian'. Let's put my posts in the context of this thread. The OP dealt with Plato's theistic (definitely not Christian) assertion that atheism is dangerous and should be suppressed. I, with yourself and others,participated in a good natured and humorous discussion. You said that freedom from religious ethical restraints allowed scientists to conduct new forms of research and experimentation. I agreed, and rather mischeviously suggested Josef Mengele as an example. This led to another poster protesting that not many atheists would share Mengele's views on ethics. My response was of course not, since "Most atheists still retain a large amount of moralism that is inherited from theism".

This led to a 'response' that it is ridiculous to say that atheists have inherited morality from theists. Therefore I am using the Just war Theory as an example. Of course theologians loom large in the history of the just war theory, but that is no way claiming the concept as Christian. I personally disagree with much of the Just War Theory.

Does that make things clearer?

It clarifies, indeed - and clarification is often necessary when one argues with Tim...

One point, though - there seems to be a little bit of muddle still there:

1. "Most atheists still retain a large amount of moralism that is inherited from theism" (as argued by PDN)

2. It is ridiculous to say that atheists have inherited morality from theists (as argued by atheists)

3. Of course theologians loom large in the history of the just war theory, but that is no way claiming the concept as Christian (as stated by PDN)

What you've shown, in (3), is that (2) is not true. However, the other implication of (3) is that (1) is not the case.

So, you have shown that atheists have inherited some morality from theists, but not from theism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Let's take it slowly. How does anything that George Bush says have any bearing on the historical fact that Thomas Aquinas developed the principle of the just law, and that consequently atheists have inherited the just war concept and incororporated it into their morality?

Ok let's take it really slowly :rolleyes:
You picked one example ("origin of Just War")which in itself is debatable. Your point was this example, in your eyes supported your hypotheisis.
That in itself is debatable. The "just war" comes short because it fails to acknowledge relative context. A war may seem to "just" to one side, but it is usually the other way around for the other side. The Bush administration may have considered their invasion just, but that's from their relative context, did Saddam - doubt it. So there's no objectively morality here.

Furthermore, when does someone actually think they are wrong to go to war i.e. when does a statesman say, "I declare an unjust war and I / we are wrong to be fighting it, there is no justice at all in this war, but let's have it anyway".

Just war is an oxymoran. A rhetorical concept to convince people it is right to kill. Aquinas, Augustine, are contradicting their own dogma:
"thou shalt not kill".

However the big picture (what you are missing) is that dogma, Religion, theology provides no good mechanism for resolving disagreement. There are a catalyst for war, if anything.

Science, provides the scientific method. If there is disagreement fine, find a condition where the theories differ and make different predictions and whichever one (if not both) are wrong chuck it (them) out.

Steady state V Big Bang - no war, noone gets killed, disagreement resolved.
Newton's gravity V Einsteins gravity - no war, noone gets killed, disagreement resolved.

It's a pity we can't say the same for:

Judaism V Chrisitianity
Islam V Christiainity
Catholism V Protestants

Why does the fact that I cannot see the relevance of Bush to this point make me very dogmatic and fundamentalist?

You refuse to acknowledge all the examples I gave and appear to disregard any evidence that refutes your hypotheisis. Now your hyptheisis is "athesim inherit morals from theology" - ok I have been disputing this. I give an example to refute it and then you retort, how does that refute the "just war" argument. they are actually refuting your hypotheisis not your "just war" argument.
It seems, you are fundamentally and dogmatically bound to your hypotheisis, contradictory evidence, logic are irrelevant.

Again, could you explain why it is "chilling" for me as a Christian (and one who opposed the American invasion of Iraq) to use that invasion as an example in a discussion on ethics. Do you find it chilling for anyone to use Iraq as an example? Or does the chill factor only apply to theists, to Christians, or to PDN alone?

Because you are missing the point about Iraq.
The Bush administration has huge support from fundamental and evangelical Christians many of whom think the world was made in 6 days, the second coming is only 50 years away. The absence of rational enquiry has helped the administration get away with that they did. This idiot Bush, thinks he has a hotline to God, and receives huge support from right wing Christians, Jews and Neo cons.
If anything Iraq is another example where dogma, theology and religion have humanity a grave disservice.

Are you seriously arguing that because Augustine had some weird ideas about sex, then that must necessarily invalidate his role in developing the concept of a just war? If not, then what relevance has Augustine's teaching on sex got to do with this discussion?

No, because it refutes your hypotheisis of atheist inheriting morals from theology. can you not admit that?

Does the mere mention of Augustine's name, like that of Luther, render you incapable of dealing with the issues under discussion?

What type of silly rherotic is this? What do you think I have been doing singing or dancing - no I have been discussing.

Again, I have asked you to show me how I, or anyone else in this thread, has argued that the concept of genocide being bad is inherited from Abrahamic theology. So far you have not answered. Just calling my post 'Hillarious' (sic) is no substitute for rational debate.

My point exactly, it's not inherited from Abrahamic theology which again refutes your hypotheis, atheism inherits moral from theology.

Scofflaw

Again, I have asked you to show me how I, or anyone else in this thread, has argued that the concept of genocide being bad is inherited from Abrahamic theology. So far you have not answered. Just calling my post 'Hillarious' (sic) is no substitute for rational debate.

My point exactly, it's not inherited from Abrahamic theology which again refutes your hypotheis, atheism inherits moral from theology.

One counter-example is totally insufficient to refute PDN's hypothesis, because PDN didn't claim that "atheism inherits all its morality from theism".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

One counter-example is totally insufficient to refute PDN's hypothesis, because PDN didn't claim that "atheism inherits all its morality from theism".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nore did he claim:

"atheism inherits some of its morality from theism".

Maybe PDN culd clarify?
Either way, several ,not one, counter examples were provided.
I also suggested he refined the hypotheis in my previous thread (posted at 9.45):

"Counter examples would suggest your hypotheisis should be refined to something like:
"perhaps some morals have been inherited from theology"."

He didn't so I assume he was arguing all morals, maybe it would fairer if we let PDN clarify what he means i.e how much morality he thinks has been inherited from theism to atheism?
If there is a misunderstanding, it's a pointless debate.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Nore did he claim:

"atheism inherits some of its morality from theism".

Maybe PDN culd clarify?

Certainly one would require that point clarified before one could claim a refutation.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Either way, several ,not one, counter examples were provided.

That is still insufficient if his claim is not "all".

Tim Robbins wrote:

He didn't so I assume he was arguing all morals, maybe it would fairer if we let PDN clarify what he means i.e how much morality he thinks has been inherited from theism to atheism?
If there is a misunderstanding, it's a pointless debate.

Yes it would.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

So, you have shown that atheists have inherited some morality from theists, but not from theism.

I think that sums it up nicely

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

It clarifies, indeed - and clarification is often necessary when one argues with Tim...

I think he was replying and clarfying for you that time, Fatso.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think he was replying and clarfying for you that time, Fatso.

I know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph

Tim Robbins wrote:

Judaism V Chrisitianity
Islam V Christiainity
Catholism V Protestants

There are many, MANY underlying social and political factors in basically all of the [religion A] v [religion b] match-ups that I can think of.
Reducing it to [religion A] v [religion b] is like reducing einsein's gravity to "curvy things happen".

Tim Robbins

Fallen Seraph wrote:

There are many, MANY underlying social and political factors in basically all of the [religion A] v [religion b] match-ups that I can think of.
Reducing it to [religion A] v [religion b] is like reducing einsein's gravity to "curvy things happen".

I am not trying to blame religion for all wars, but I am suggesting it has contributed to the causes of several wars.
In particular, the two facets of religion as I see as very dangerous are:
* Indoctrination
* Not having a agreeable process for resolving disagreement like the scientific method.

Obviously the philosophy of loving thy neighbour is never going to cause a war. The factors that contribute to any war have to analysed so that we humans learn from our mistakes. It would be a good thing if Religion for example got rid of indoctrination but this would probably be a threat to it's survival.
Outside religion, there are many other reasons for war, I fully agree with that.
But we are going off topic, let's let PDN come back and see if he will clarify his hypotheisis.

Cardinal

If the two opposing side in the north had not been able to label themselves protestant and catholic, would the troubles have persisted for as long as they did?

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

It's been many years since I read Russell's A History of Western Philosophy - but I distinctly remember Pythagoras, rather than Plato, as being the guy with the bean phobia.

Nope. Definitely Plato. He also said that one should never eat from a whole loaf of bread and numerous other quasi-metaphysical restrictions on what one should and shouldnt do.

PDN

Cardinal wrote:

If the two opposing side in the north had not been able to label themselves protestant and catholic, would the troubles have persisted for as long as they did?

The answer is probably yes. If the two tribes concerned had labelled themselves as Scots Unionists and Irish Nationalists then I don't see why the bitterness would have been lessened/

In many parts of the world (eg tribal warfare in New Guinea, or the Hutu/Tutsi conflict in Rwanda) opposing tribes are perfectly capable of slaughtering one another in huge numbers without any religious incentive.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The answer is probably yes. If the two tribes concerned had labelled themselves as Scots Unionists and Irish Nationalists then I don't see why the bitterness would have been lessened/

But the whole thing kicked off in the first place because of the switching back and forth in England between Catholic rule and Protestant rule. This is back when people took that stuff seriously and were prepared to kill and die rather than live under rule of one or the other.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

But the whole thing kicked off in the first place because of the switching back and forth in England between Catholic rule and Protestant rule. This is back when people took that stuff seriously and were prepared to kill and die rather than live under rule of one or the other.

Any historian will tell you that is a pretty drastic oversimplification of a complex process. For example, the switching back and forth in England began, not for religious reasons, but because Henry VIII wanted to get his greedy mitts on the wealth of the monasteries.

Undoubtedly religion played a role in the ethnic mix that ended up living in the same corner of Ireland, but no more so than economic push/pull factors. Human nature reveals that we like to murder and kill one another to get what we want. I suspect we will always disagree as to how things would have been if there was no religion. I reckon we would have easily found other reasons to kill each other, as Jonathan Swift put in Gulliver's Travels:

"...our histories of six thousand moons make no mention of any other regions than the two great empires of Lilliput and Blefuscu. Which two mighty powers have, as I was going to tell you, been engaged in a most obstinate war for six-and-thirty moons past. It began upon the following occasion. It is allowed on all hands, that the primitive way of breaking eggs, before we eat them, was upon the larger end; but his present majesty's grandfather, while he was a boy, going to eat an egg, and breaking it according to the ancient practice, happened to cut one of his fingers. Whereupon the emperor his father published an edict, commanding all his subjects, upon great penalties, to break the smaller end of their eggs. The people so highly resented this law, that our histories tell us, there have been six rebellions raised on that account; wherein one emperor lost his life, and another his crown. These civil commotions were constantly fomented by the monarchs of Blefuscu; and when they were quelled, the exiles always fled for refuge to that empire. It is computed that eleven thousand persons have at several times suffered death, rather than submit to break their eggs at the smaller end. Many hundred large volumes have been published upon this controversy: but the books of the Big-endians have been long forbidden, and the whole party rendered incapable by law of holding employments. During the course of these troubles, the emperors of Blefusca did frequently expostulate by their ambassadors, accusing us of making a schism in religion, by offending against a fundamental the Blundecral (which is their Alcoran). This, however, is thought to be a mere strain upon the text; for the words are these: 'that all true believers break their eggs at the convenient end.'

And which is the convenient end, seems, in my humble opinion to be left to every man's conscience, or at least in the power of the chief magistrate to determine. Now, the Big-endian exiles have found so much credit in the emperor of Blefuscu's court, and so much private assistance and encouragement from their party here at home, that a bloody war has been carried on between the two empires for six-and-thirty moons, with various success; during which time we have lost forty capital ships, and a much a greater number of smaller vessels, together with thirty thousand of our best seamen and soldiers; and the damage received by the enemy is reckoned to be somewhat greater than ours. However, they have now equipped a numerous fleet, and are just preparing to make a descent upon us; and his imperial majesty, placing great confidence in your valour and strength, has commanded me to lay this account of his affairs before you."

There is, of course, no way to prove me (or Swift) to be wrong, since we cannot turn back the clock and rerun a religionless version of history.

Now, you may of course argue that if there was no religion then mankind would have spent the last few thousand years living in a Golden Age where there was no war, just dazzling logic and amazing feats of scientific advancement. There is no way I can prove such a thesis wrong.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

So, you have shown that atheists have inherited some morality from theists, but not from theism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I've jumped in on page 5 of this debate - I can't face reading the previous pages - so sorry if I'm completely missing the point.

Anyway, Scofflaw, in your nicely succinct sound-bite of a sentence I fail to see the overall difference. I'm curious to your answer, though. Yes or No - has Christianity influenced your morals?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Any historian will tell you that is a pretty drastic oversimplification of a complex process. For example, the switching back and forth in England began, not for religious reasons, but because Henry VIII wanted to get his greedy mitts on the wealth of the monasteries.

Well that in of itself is a rather gross over simplification of the foundations of the Protestant churches in England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

PDN wrote:

Human nature reveals that we like to murder and kill one another to get what we want.

It does, but we tend to do this in a "them and us" mentality. Religion allows people who share everything else to think of themselves as "them and us"

It is not of course the only thing that contributes to this, but it is still a real problem.

PDN wrote:

Now, you may of course argue that if there was no religion then mankind would have spent the last few thousand years living in a Golden Age where there was no war, just dazzling logic and amazing feats of scientific advancement.

Certainly not.

But no religion would have removed one of the major reasons why people divide themselves up into "them and us" and want to kill the "them".

Like it or not religion is a very emotive subject.

Yes people kill for country, or money, or power. But it seems that the thing people are most prepared to kill for is religion. Which kinda makes sense since the religions themselves promise something that is arguably far more important to the followers than country, money or power.

Leaders may go to war for power or money, but they more often than not get the general masses to follow them with religion. Religion is after all a form of manipulation.

It wouldn't have removed all of the reasons why people go to war obviously, but it would have removed a big one.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote:

Certainly not.

But no religion would have removed one of the major reasons why people divide themselves up into "them and us" and want to kill the "them".

I really don't know how you can reach such a conclusion. Your claim has no real evidence to support it - 'Sweden!' you cry.

I personally think that religion, emotive as it is, has throughout the ages been used as nothing more than a handy line drawn in the sand to create an 'us and them' scenario. Without it I'm sure mankind could come up with an equally ridiculous method to create an apartheid of some sort. Eh, apartheid perhaps!

Bearing in mind that I have absolutely no desire to defend Christendom, I agree that many, many terrible things have been done apparently (note the italics) for the good of God. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that in the absence of religion we would live in a war free utopia, spending each day running around hand-in-hand sing Burt Bacharach songs.

In the absence of religion, I would imagine there could quite easily be a massive war between those who extol the refreshing tang of the orange and those who exalt the mighty crunch of the apple. Conflict and division are part of human nature. Look no further than a bunch of kids playing to see the proof.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

So, you have shown that atheists have inherited some morality from theists, but not from theism.

Anyway, Scofflaw, in your nicely succinct sound-bite of a sentence I fail to see the overall difference. I'm curious to your answer, though. Yes or No - has Christianity influenced your morals?

If person X is a great moral thinker, and I am influenced by them, am I therefore necessarily influenced by their religion? I have been influenced morally by the Bible (NT anyway, plus the Decalogue), and by Bertrand Russell (an atheist), and Omar Khayyam (a Muslim, translated by a Victorian), Marcus Aurelius (a follower of the Roman state religion), Basho (a Buddhist and/or Shinto poet) - but have I actually been influenced by the beliefs of their religions?

If, like PDN, one believes that the doctrine of "just war" was concocted entirely so that Christians could feel certain they wouldn't go to Hell, then if I accept the doctrine of just war I have been influenced by Christian beliefs. However, the notion of a 'just war' predates Christianity, so this is not the case, even though I accept much of what Augustine thought.

Let us say that there was a clause in the doctrine of just war that said that it is just to go to war with unbelievers. Would I accept such a clause? Obviously not - such a clause only makes sense to the believer.

Similarly, I think a good deal of Plato, but am not influenced by his beliefs on beans.

Thus, while I am influenced by various people, who were theists, it's not necessarily the case that their thinking was entirely the outcome of their beliefs (any more than that of Torquemada was) - and in turn their influence on me is not that of theirm, but of the individuals concerned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Again, another very heavy-handed red herring. This is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether atheists have inherited the principle of the just war from theism.

Hi,
Not sure if this debate is wrapped up, but I am reading 'The History of Western Philosophy' right now. In the chapter 'Aristotle's politics', Chapter 21, page 180-181, Russell, talks about Aristotle's ideas of a just war.
"War, however, is just when waged against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not submit..."
Not sure if one could say the concept of a just war, originated with Augustine.
Your thoughts...

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Hi,
Not sure if this debate is wrapped up, but I am reading 'The History of Western Philosophy' right now. In the chapter 'Aristotle's politics', Chapter 21, page 180-181, Russell, talks about Aristotle's ideas of a just war.
"War, however, is just when waged against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not submit..."
Not sure if one could say the concept of a just war, originated with Augustine.
Your thoughts...

The idea of whether a war is just or not probably dates back to the first time a group of cavemen bashed another group and said, "But they deserved it!"

However, the principles of the just war that are largely assumed today, and which are incorporated into the Geneva Convention, are those formulated by Augustine and refined by Aquinas.

Aristotle's concept of a just war, as indicated in your quote, sounds essentially racist. In fact it is remarkably close to the notion of Manifest Destiny (which was, I am ashamed to say, invented by an Irishman) that the white man used to justify his genocide against the Native American.

It's probably a good thing, therefore, that we have inherited this particular aspect of our morality from the theists of Christendom rather than from the Greek theists. Otherwise our discussion of the morality of the Iraq war would be confined to: "Arabs trying to run their own country? Of course they deserve to be invaded!"