thirdplace posted:
do professional atheists in the sam hitchkins mold ever grapple with the fact that the liberal humanist values they all hold and in fact claim to be led to by atheism are all basically christian/abrahamic?
lol if you think that modern liberal humanism is espoused by abrahamism
Impper posted:
it seems to me that suffering has to some degree transmuted in the modern era
ya, same with paleolithic or axial or feudal times or whatever the fuck ... it seems like ahistorical b.s. to suggest otherwise, if ya ask me !
lungfish posted:
Atheism is obviously correct but too many young atheists foolishly conclude that there are no moral values as a result. The scourge that is postmodern relativism is the result of atheism, and that sucks. But atheism is still true and once people direct themselves constructively to the transvaluation of all values (with well-deserved respect for, but not orthodox adherence to, traditional values), and enforce these values via a culture and state, things will improve in this respect and subjective nihilism will go by the wayside.
Wow wtf you communist degenerate. Look what they've done to you.. soon you'll be saying we must live free
tpaine posted:thirdplace posted:
do professional atheists in the sam hitchkins mold ever grapple with the fact that the liberal humanist values they all hold and in fact claim to be led to by atheism are all basically christian/abrahamic?really? people still think this?
i do b/c it's true, the differences goatstein talks about are important politically but totally peripheral theologically/philosophically; there are plenty of theists who have no problem ignoring them
Goethestein posted:
yes those totally peripheral theological/philosophical differences like "there is no god," "jesus did not die for our sins" and "there is no afterlife"
(ethical) values, not opinions on facts
jesus had an answer for the sociopath; so did epicurus. dawkins? not so much
aerdil posted:
reminder that socrates was an immensely ugly and smelly hipster jackass who went around telling all the annoying rich kids that they should smash democracy
he was the first marxist-leninist
cool, hope the rest follow his example
thirdplace posted:tpaine posted:thirdplace posted:
do professional atheists in the sam hitchkins mold ever grapple with the fact that the liberal humanist values they all hold and in fact claim to be led to by atheism are all basically christian/abrahamic?really? people still think this?
i do b/c it's true, the differences goatstein talks about are important politically but totally peripheral theologically/philosophically; there are plenty of theists who have no problem ignoring them
it's not though. the idea that liberal humanism is "christian" is just silly on the face of it, and is nothing more than an attempt by Christianity to claim credit for the Enlightenment.
Yeah, Christianity emphasizes kindness and justice; so does confucianism. Unlike Confucianism, Christian doctrine emphasizes a top-down model of authority (God has our loyalty automatically) and submission to the laws of even an unjust state. It is inherently counterrevolutionary.
Cycloneboy posted:
it's not though. the idea that liberal humanism is "christian" is just silly on the face of it, and is nothing more than an attempt by Christianity to claim credit for the Enlightenment..
It's just a matter of inertia. Western society was dominated by Christian morality for an eon. Then scientific observations made it blatantly obvious to everyone that the religious cosmology was completely incorrect. This caused them to doubt religion and the existence of God itself. They even began revising their views on morality a bit.
But their views on morality are still fundamentally the same, simply because of tradition and inertia. Indiscriminate kindness is upheld as a virtue, for instance. That is an example of Christian morality.
The most notable philosopher to point out that the democratic movement is the secular heir to Christianity was Nietzsche. What actual Christians always say is that atheists have no morality at all.
babyfinland posted:
What rinky dink special ed class did you learn about world religions in child?
confucianism emphasizes a bilateral relationship between governed and government: both owe loyalty to each other. christianity builds its model of authority as a top-down affair, all authority falling from God.
lungfish posted:
But their views on morality are still fundamentally the same, simply because of tradition and inertia. Indiscriminate kindness is upheld as a virtue, for instance. That is an example of Christian morality.
no, it's an example of human morality. do you think buddhists/muslims/hindus hate charity?
Cycloneboy posted:lungfish posted:
But their views on morality are still fundamentally the same, simply because of tradition and inertia. Indiscriminate kindness is upheld as a virtue, for instance. That is an example of Christian morality.no, it's an example of human morality. do you think buddhists/muslims/hindus hate charity?
Actually, kindness should only be given to those who deserve it, as a matter of justice. The Christian idea is a perversion of that, and a very egalitarian one.
That said, this view was very different compared to the barbarian societies which were simply ruthless and primitive, in contrast with Christians. Christian morality has been the cornerstone of Western civilization, and I say "civilization" not to refer to an area or people, but a style of society that is civilized. That it comes so "obviously" to you is exactly what I'm talking about.
Cycloneboy posted:babyfinland posted:
What rinky dink special ed class did you learn about world religions in child?confucianism emphasizes a bilateral relationship between governed and government: both owe loyalty to each other. christianity builds its model of authority as a top-down affair, all authority falling from God.
lungfish posted:
Actually, kindness should only be given to those who deserve it, as a matter of justice. The Christian idea is a perversion of that, and a very egalitarian one.
liberal humanists don't believe we should dismantle the justice system, ergo their ethics are not christian.
Cycloneboy posted:lungfish posted:
Actually, kindness should only be given to those who deserve it, as a matter of justice. The Christian idea is a perversion of that, and a very egalitarian one.liberal humanists don't believe we should dismantle the justice system, ergo their ethics are not christian.
But they hate the justice system. They hate cops, they hate judges, they hate jails, they hate executions, they hate The Man and think everyone should get along. That's all Christian thinking. Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone. The State continues its function as a provider of justice in spite of that morality, and uses the morality itself when it is convenient (e.g. demonizing the enemy when waging war)
lungfish posted:Cycloneboy posted:lungfish posted:
Actually, kindness should only be given to those who deserve it, as a matter of justice. The Christian idea is a perversion of that, and a very egalitarian one.liberal humanists don't believe we should dismantle the justice system, ergo their ethics are not christian.
But they hate the justice system. They hate cops, they hate judges, they hate jails, they hate executions, they hate The Man and think everyone should get along. That's all Christian thinking. Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone. The State continues its function as a provider of justice in spite of that morality, and uses the morality itself when it is convenient (e.g. demonizing the enemy when waging war)
that's because those things are constructed in a Bad Way. liberal humanists are not inherently opposed to the idea of a justice system, but instead to its present form in the United States (plenty of them love how it's done in Western Europe). it's like saying that just because you think that Chernobyl was a terrible power plant, you must oppose all nuclear power.
thirdplace posted:Goethestein posted:
yes those totally peripheral theological/philosophical differences like "there is no god," "jesus did not die for our sins" and "there is no afterlife"(ethical) values, not opinions on facts
jesus had an answer for the sociopath; so did epicurus. dawkins? not so much
i agree that abrahamism has similar ethical values to modern liberal humanism in the event that we ignore all the other ethical values that have nothing to do with modern ethical humanism. in this way a cooked turkey is similar to an asteroid field
birth of liberalism circa 2500 BCE
crustpunk_trotsky posted:
the whole moral of the book of job was "don't question the system, have faith and the invisible hand will shower you in wealth"
birth of liberalism circa 2500 BCE
i dont think job ever got showered in wealth
Well after taking all his wealth, killing his family and leaving him sick and alone, Job broke down and asked why he was forsaken despite his faith. God criticized Job for dare questioning God and losing faith just as the test was nearing completion. Then he gave him all his shit back (well, new children, the old ones were dead). Job goes down in history as a guy who ultimately lacked faith in the face of adversity.
The strongest comparison to this story is Abraham, who God told to kill his son, Isaac. The difference is that Abraham had the faith to actually go through with it, even though God stopped him and told him it was all just a test in the end.
crustpunk_trotsky posted:
iirc god's explanation is that humans just don't know what it's like being a deity, how dare you judge me, then literally uses the allegory of a peasant questioning the actions of a king
also he goes into a big long tirade that lists things he does/deals with that are blatantly, verifiably untrue.