The Passion rotten so far

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'll let BK argue with you on that one, but this is clearly outside mainstream religious thought. And I've been baptized--does this mean I'm granted access to this heaven I don't believe in by default?

Boris, you are a good person. I know this from your posts here and from your love of music and life.

You should have not problem with the hereafter.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
However, look at the signature statement of Che below and judge for yourself about Che.

Che is che, and he alone is responsible for his statements and beliefs. No atheist claims to speak for the moral beliefs of other atheist. And I'm not inclined to judge him on a quote in someone else's signature that may be totally taken out of context.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, some are rather nice. What I am instead claiming that the ideal atheist would belittle Christians.

And you haven't substantiated this claim. What about an "atheist" ideal leads to belittling Christians? Atheism doesn't accept the Christian notion that everyone is inherently sinful, so the notion that without religion we should be behaving badly is not substantiated without using religious dogma. So you're using circular reasoning here.

Lacking evidence to the contrary, I need some kind of affirmation of love for Christians, beyond the tolerance you express.

Love for other human beings is a philosophical value, and atheism is not a moral philosophy, it is only a statement in the lack of belief in a supernatural deity. Period. Most Buddhists are atheists--do you think they share the same moral philosophy as secular humanists?

Yet I do not charge you specifically, and you do not hesitate to call me hypocrite. Go ahead, show me your proof of me belittling Atheists.

Um, "the ideal atheist would belittle Christians."
"I would argue that the ideal for Atheists is to reject all forms of Christianity, and to belittle believers."

Yup, that's belittling Atheists!

So if we lived in an intolerant society, we ought to be intolerant? Cultural relativism is poor sand for a foundation.

Selectively ignoring arguments again, Ben. Note how I said social context was included among other things. This game can really go on forever, can't it? WHy don't you look up some moral philosophies, such as secular humanism and Utilitarianism?

The last part of your statement contradicts the former. If atheism is a moral philosophy, it will say that one can only resort to reason and social values to define morality. If it is not, there will be no need to make such a statement.

Wrong, Ben. Atheism isn't moral philosophy, it only is a statement about belief in a deity. That's it. So by it's very nature as metaphysical belief, it denotes that moral values must come from a non-supernatural source. That's not a moral philosophy in itself, it's simply a statement of fact based upon the natural conclusion of the lack of belief in a deity. There's no moral connotation to it whatsoever.

So which is it? Is Atheism a moral philosophy, or is it not? If not, it cannot make the statement I request confirming love towards Christians in particular, and religious folks in general. You confirm my precise statement that it is an optional value, and not obligatory.

It's NOT, and no one ever argued it was. But again, the "ideal Atheist" will have a moral philosophy not derived from religious dogma, but from other secular sources. Nothing about that requires belittling believers. You seem to once again want someone to prove a negative, which is a tremendous logical fallacy. You have the onus of proving the positive, which is proving to me that atheism requires belittling believers. Got any proof?

It makes little sense to compare Atheism to Christianity, for the same claims to truth cannot be met by Atheism, as can be confirmed by Christianity.

This is precisely the point! Comparing a moral philosophy to something that isn't a moral philosophy is stupid! Atheism is not a moral philosophy, it says nothing about moral values whatsoever. It's simply a lack of belief in a supernatural deity. That's all!

But by asking for a comparable tenet in atheism to a Christian doctrine or any religious doctrine, you're doing exactly what you say makes no sense!

Yes, I do. That does not prevent me from speaking the truth. Many argue that I am not respecting them by showing them the truth of abortion.

So apply your argument here to an atheist. Nothing prevents an atheist from speaking what he feels is the truth, does it? So is an atheist saying he doesn't believe in God somehow belittling you and your beliefs? No, it's just expressing a different opinion.

[Ben Kenobi]

"....the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals." '

Thomas Aquinas.

Yes, there's a whole lot of love there.

That did not take long for you to dig up a quote eh?

How about:

"We immoralists have...made room in our hearts for every kind of understanding, comprehending and approving. We do not easily negate; we make it a point of honor to be affirmers."

Yet Nietzsche would deny that same freedom to Christians, and objective morality.

So on one hand you have approval of every moral system that one can agree with, and the disapproval of views to which one disagrees. Everything comes down to mere personal opinion, which has been my charge on Atheism from the start.

You may believe that it is right to treat others as you have been treated, but you have no foundation for the claim apart from personal opinion.

What is the philosophical basis for religionistas to love atheists? Did they make a moral choice, or has the choice been made for them?

Christ tells us that there is no good in loving only those who can love us back, but in loving those who do not love us, that we seek a higher standard.

The foundation for this love, comes from the recognition that all men are made in the image of God, and thus have immeasurable value. In refusing to love them, it amounts to a rejection of God.

Why you assume that because you have a belief that your moral philiosophy comes from supernatural being, that it is necessarily better than mine, is part and parcel of the arrogance of religionistas.

I make no such assertion.

What on earth do you think tolerance is about, if not love=respect for fellow human beings?

Tolerance does not equate with love. You can tolerate someone by not speaking to them at all.

I respect your right to believe in any number of impossible things, but I still maintain that you labour under a delusion- I would not be true to my own principles if I did not do so.

Fair enough. I do not believe you to be deluded or outside of your senses, for I once believed as you did. For if I saw then, so must you see now. Rather, I would say that you have not seen all there is.

You make the standard incorrect assumption that because atheism is not 'for religion' then it is necessarily 'against religion'.

I merely make the claim that loving an enemy is a personal opinion of Atheists, and rests upon no solid foundation. One atheist could not call another to task on this point.

Are you for Kali, or Muhammad, or Ahura Mazda? Or are you against them?

Not the issue, you misstate my case.

There is no standard philosophical blueprint for those who do not believe in superstition or religion, or astrology, or anything similar- no codex, no Bible or Qu'ran.

So it is all opinion?

There is however a whole stream of philosophical thought predating Christianity and Islam and reaching into modern times, that stresses that the responsibility for our actions lies with us- there is no get out clause for me, I can't say 'god made me do it' or 'it was divinely ordained'.

But surely you do not claim these authors were Atheists? Much of this sort of reasoning would be made by Theists as well. That is why you have a notion of free will.

rather than seeing it as an arbitrary set of rules handed down by a glowing vapour, or a voice from a cloud.

So instead, you affirm arbitrary personal opinion. Thank you very much.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, you are a good person. I know this from your posts here and from your love of music and life.

You should have not problem with the hereafter.

Well, that's very kind. So I can say this thread hasn't totally made me weep for humanity.

And if it means anything, I don't think you will have any problem in the hereafter either. But that's because I don't believe there will be one.

[Ned]

I am of two minds about this following story. However, the story does seem to acknowledge that France is experiencing a major problem with anti-Semitism.

February 29, 2004

BY KIM WILLSHER
Advertisement




PARIS -- French cinema chains are refusing to distribute or screen Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of the Christ" because of fears it will spark a new outbreak of anti-Semitism.

France is the only European country where there is still no distribution deal for the film, which depicts the last days of Jesus Christ in graphic detail and is accused by critics of stoking anti-Jewish sentiment.

The film was released in America last week, but French distributors are wary of its impact on audiences and want to gauge its reception elsewhere in Europe, where it is due to open next month.

"We don't want to be on the side of those who support such anti-Semitism," a veteran film industry figure said. "When we distributed 'It's a Beautiful Life' by [Roberto] Benigni, we were worried about the risk of making a comedy about the Holocaust, but that was different. There's enough anti-Semitic stuff circulating here already without us throwing oil on the fire."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/29/box.office.reut/index.html

[Ben Kenobi]

What about an "atheist" ideal leads to belittling Christians? Atheism doesn't accept the Christian notion that everyone is inherently sinful, so the notion that without religion we should be behaving badly is not substantiated without using religious dogma.

So what you are saying is that one would not be behaving badly to belittle Christians? If so, then thank you.

So you're using circular reasoning here.

Not at all. I am merely making the assumption that Atheism is a moral philosophy, and needs to be one in order to provide a foundation for loving enemies, beyond that of personal opinion.

Most Buddhists are atheists

You so sure about that? Most Buddhists are not atheists.

--do you think they share the same moral philosophy as secular humanists?

No, but then, that confirms my position Boris. The harder you argue against the moral philosophy of atheism, the harder it is to affirm the concept that one ought to love ones enemies.

"I would argue that the ideal for Atheists is to reject all forms of Christianity, and to belittle believers."

Yup, that's belittling Atheists!

You certainly could not condemn an Atheist for believing that.

WHy don't you look up some moral philosophies, such as secular humanism and Utilitarianism?

Because that claim most often pertains to cultural relativism, that is all. I am familiar with the others, but you have not made the proper case for either.

Atheism isn't moral philosophy, it only is a statement about belief in a deity. That's it.

Thank you. So then you admit that atheism in itself, cannot affirm that one ought to love one's enemies.

It is also meaningless to compare atheism to Christianity, for the two make very different truth claims, with Christianity offering a much greater proof for their beliefs.

Nothing about that requires belittling believers. You seem to once again want someone to prove a negative, which is a tremendous logical fallacy.

No, I am asking for an affirmative. Show me why one ought to love your enemy. So far all I have seen are arguments based on personal opinion.

[Ned]

The Passion's weekend gross exceed that of The Lord of the Rings, the Return on the King and is the second best in history, Wednesday to Sunday.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/29/box.office.reut/index.html

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So what you are saying is that one would not be behaving badly to belittle Christians? If so, then thank you.

Huh? No, that's not what I said, it's opposite what I said. I said that nothing about being an atheist means one must behave badly. So belittling Christians is behaving badly. I'm looking for an affirmative proof from you that atheists are required to belittle people by their belief system.

Not at all. I am merely making the assumption that Atheism is a moral philosophy, and needs to be one in order to provide a foundation for loving enemies, beyond that of personal opinion.

And you're wrong, it's not a moral philosophy, as has been said time and time again. Why don't you list for us the moral tenets of atheism if you think it is such a philosophy?

You so sure about that? Most Buddhists are not atheists.

What in Buddhism makes any reference to a God, Ben? Nothing. Now, Buddhists can be theists, sure--but most I've met have no belief in a deity.

No, but then, that confirms my position Boris. The harder you argue against the moral philosophy of atheism, the harder it is to affirm the concept that one ought to love ones enemies.

You're entirely missing the point, however. Since atheism isn't a moral philosophy, of course it won't say anything about loving one's enemies. But nor does it say anything about hating them, which you're stating it does. It isn't a moral philosophy, period.

Your mistake is that you fail to account for atheists having a moral philosophy outside of atheism. Since atheism isn't a moral philosophy, they MUST have one. Whether it's secular humanism, Utilitarianism, Buddhism, or whatever, THAT is where they will derive their moral tenets.

You certainly could not condemn an Atheist for believing that.

You could, but not on the notion that it's a violation of atheism, but rather because it's being an *******. That's because (familiar trope here) atheism is not a moral philosophy.

Because that claim most often pertains to cultural relativism, that is all. I am familiar with the others, but you have not made the proper case for either.

Again, missing the point. They were mentioned because they are among the moral philosophies atheists follow, since atheism isn't such a philosophy in and of itself.

Thank you. So then you admit that atheism in itself, cannot affirm that one ought to love one's enemies.

Which I never said wasn't the case. But you're failing to grasp the point that atheists have moral philosophies, and nothing about being an atheist in and of itself requires one to belittle others' beliefs.

It is also meaningless to compare atheism to Christianity, for the two make very different truth claims, with Christianity offering a much greater proof for their beliefs.

Yeah, sure. Sorry, but I've seen your "proof" for your beliefs, and they amount to nothing of the kind. You have faith, not proof. Positive atheists may be making a leap of logic, but it's a far smaller leap than required of religious people for their beliefs. That doesn't make them wrong, mind you, but that is what the evidence suggests.

No, I am asking for an affirmative. Show me why one ought to love your enemy. So far all I have seen are arguments based on personal opinion.

No, Ben, you weren't originally asking for an affirmative. You asked for a negative proof that an "ideal athiest" shouldn't belittle the beliefs of others. You offered no evidence of your own to prove they should be doing so, however.

"Love your enemy" can be a non-theistic moral philosophy. Buddhism expresses it. Is it necessary to be an athiest? No, but being atheist only means one doesn't believe in a god, nothing more.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

That did not take long for you to dig up a quote eh?

How about:

"We immoralists have...made room in our hearts for every kind of understanding, comprehending and approving. We do not easily negate; we make it a point of honor to be affirmers."

Yet Nietzsche would deny that same freedom to Christians, and objective morality.

Possibly because I'm familiar with a version of Christianity, and its history. You appear to be unfamiliar with atheism, or what it actually is.

Nietzsche has to speak for himself- he doesn't speak for me, and I neither affirm nor deny what he says. There is no dogma of atheism, no orthodoxy and no set texts.

[/QUOTE]
So on one hand you have approval of every moral system that one can agree with, and the disapproval of views to which one disagrees. Everything comes down to mere personal opinion, which has been my charge on Atheism from the start. [/QUOTE]

Unfortunately you still seem unable to comprehend that atheism in itself is not a philosophy- there were Classical Greek atheists, even early Christian atheists, who were classified as such because they did not believe in the pagan Graeco-Roman pantheons.

I believe in morality in action- there are still plenty of people standing in moral cesspits of their own making shrieking to the skies how moral they are because of their religion.

[/QUOTE]
You may believe that it is right to treat others as you have been treated, but you have no foundation for the claim apart from personal opinion. [/QUOTE]

Yes.

Funny isn't it, how I believe in taking personal responsibility for my beliefs and their consequences? I've actually had to make the effort to work out my principles and ethics for myself.

[/QUOTE]
Christ tells us that there is no good in loving only those who can love us back, but in loving those who do not love us, that we seek a higher standard. [/QUOTE]

I believe in charity for its own sake- so do plenty of other atheists. I don't believe in helping only those who can help me. I don't believe in building a house to god to impress god with how much I love god. I'm aware that by donating to Oxfam, or the various charities I have given money or aid to, that I will derive no immediate or foreseeable benefit from it.

[/QUOTE]
The foundation for this love, comes from the recognition that all men are made in the image of God, and thus have immeasurable value. In refusing to love them, it amounts to a rejection of God. [/QUOTE]

I love humanity- I'm not sure how much more all encompassing you can get than that. I don't not love Muslims, or black people, or Communists, or bad people.


[/QUOTE]
Tolerance does not equate with love. You can tolerate someone by not speaking to them at all. [/QUOTE]

Well, perhaps Christian religionistas like you are more familiar with banning and anathemas and excommunication than I am.


[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I do not believe you to be deluded or outside of your senses, for I once believed as you did. For if I saw then, so must you see now. Rather, I would say that you have not seen all there is. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, whatever. Your rewrite of the bible is a bit flat. 'Through a glass darkly, sounding brass, la de dah...'

Do try to remember, I do know what religion is.


[/QUOTE]
I merely make the claim that loving an enemy is a personal opinion of Atheists, and rests upon no solid foundation. One atheist could not call another to task on this point. [/QUOTE]

Guess what?

There is no official credo of atheism!

Surprised?

No Nicene Creed, no Council of Trent, zip.

I happen to be a secular humanist- I have no idea what moral principles Boris espouses, nor would I presume to speak for him, without his consent and knowledge of his morals and ethics.

Your solid foundation is yet again, faith in a supernatural being. As solid, as say, faith in Tarot cards, or astrology, or knocking on wood.


[/QUOTE]
But surely you do not claim these authors were Atheists? Much of this sort of reasoning would be made by Theists as well. That is why you have a notion of free will. [/QUOTE]

I think you claim too much solely for theism- I suggest that you investigate the writings of the Hellenic atheists who had no trouble in not believing in the Greek pantheon, and did not need to replace it with a Judaic deity.


[/QUOTE]
So instead, you affirm arbitrary personal opinion. Thank you very much. [/QUOTE]

So why do you believe in your sect of Christianity? Why aren't you a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Nestorian, a monothelete, an antitrinitarian?

I affirm that people should think long and hard about their ethics and morality, and what it means to do good.

[Ben Kenobi]

You may believe that it is right to treat others as you have been treated, but you have no foundation for the claim apart from personal opinion.

Yes.

No further questions, Molly. Thank you.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

Buddhists can be theists, sure--but most I've met have no belief in a deity.

No doubt influenced by the fact that you live in New York.

Ever hear of the concept of negative soteriology? Everything in Buddhism is structured more on personal fulfillment, rather than getting close to God. So it is little surprise for me to hear that atheists like Buddhism.

You could, but not on the notion that it's a violation of atheism, but rather because it's being an *******.

Thank you. That's precisely what I was looking for.

Whether it's secular humanism, Utilitarianism, Buddhism, or whatever, THAT is where they will derive their moral tenets.

So why be an atheist then? Why not just be a utilitarian?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

No further questions, Molly. Thank you.

'The voice of reason is small, but very persistent.'

Sigmund Freud


I notice you haven't shaken the habit of quoting out of context, or partial quoting.

Is it a habit you had before you espoused your sect's beliefs, or one you acquired with their religious instruction?

The Christian Bible has been used to justify any number of immoral actions- from genocide to slavery and apartheid.

Of course, you'll just whip out your trusty and much used 'no true Scotsman' fallacy and say, 'ah, well they aren't real Christians'- but then with so many Christian sectaries leaping up and down shouting that their way is the only way, how would anyone be able to tell who might be telling the truth?

[Ben Kenobi]

So why do you believe in your sect of Christianity? Why aren't you a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Nestorian, a monothelete, an antitrinitarian?

Good question for me to ask myself when I go to Mass tonight.

1. I believe that Christians are supposed to be pacifists, and Mennonites strongly affirm that position.

2. I believe that baptism should only be done for those who have already made some profession of faith, and not done to those who are infants.

3. We have a preacher that has really helped me gain understanding and insight into Christianity.

4. The one who brought me into Christ, this is the church that he brought me into, and I have became a member of the community there.

There are other reasons why I am not Catholic, for example, but none of my reasons here have to do with personal opinion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Molly:

I notice you haven't shaken the habit of quoting out of context, or partial quoting.

I see no need to address accusations and unjustified inquiries into my positions. I asked a question, and that was the straight answer you gave before you belaboured upon Boris' points.

Is it a habit you had before you espoused your sect's beliefs, or one you acquired with their religious instruction?

Have you stopped beating your boyfriends?