Pope on gays : "Who am I to judge?"

[Sheilbh]

It's worth remembering that religious belief pre-supposes faith

[Berkut]

THis is really starting to annoy me. I never said Christianity has no value. If you want to have a discussion, please respond to what I say, I am not going to waste time continually repeating the same thing again and again while you again and again keep saying I say something else.

No, but you want to parse out any religious meaning from such things as the Golden Rule because you think the religious meaning is based on something which is false.  Seems to me you are cutting it a bit thin there.

The Golden Rule has no religious requirement though. It is not necessary to believe in any god to think that we should treat each other the way we wish to be treated.

Therefore, you cannot claim that the utility of the GR is dependent on religion, nor can you claim that some particular religion that includes the GR is positive because of it, since one can have the GR without the religion.

I don't think I am cutting anything at all thinly, quite the opposite in fact. My point is that in my experience, the things about religion that are in fact very positive tend to be those things that actually do not require any belief in god. And there are a LOT of things that happen within the scope of religious activity that are in fact very positive.

[grumbler]

Since I am an atheist, and reject the claims that various religious groups make about their gods, I do not accept that idea that we can start with something untrue, and end up in a place that is better than if we had started with the truth.

I'd say this last as "I do not accept that idea that we can start with a completely unnecessary assumption, and end up in a place that is better than if we had started without making unnecessary assumptions at all.

I don't believe, myself, that the debate is really about "truth" versus "untruth."  It is just about whether we decide to start with unnecessary (but feel-good) assumptions.

[DGuller]

I did not claim that a philosophic point of view was false, I said a philosophy based on something that was false, ie a philosophy based on a false premise, in this case, that there is a god.

I don't accept that a system of belief that informs actions based on something that is false at its foundation can or ought to be something we should accept. IMO, by definition anything that is good that comes from any such system must be based on those parts of that system that are not reliant on the falsity of the premise, in which case it is better to simply extract the portion that is not false, and incorporate it into your ssytem of belief without the portion that is false.

In more concrete terms, if you say (as a common example) that you accept that there is no god, but religion is still a positive because it includes the concept of the golden rule, then my response will be that it is not religion which is positive, but the golden rule, and we can have that without the need for the religious container, and would in fact be better off with a system of belief that informs our actions that includes the golden rule, but excludes god.

What's the enforcement mechanism, though?  A lot of the good thing that religion advocates are of the "bad for individual, but much better for society" kinds of things, with the idea being that if everyone does it, the better society would more than offset the individual sacrifices.  That kind of system can only be sustained if there is someone there to enforce every individual's compliance, otherwise why not just freeload?  Since nothing that actually exists can perform that role, you have to have god, who sees what you do even when you're alone.

[Berkut]

Since I am an atheist, and reject the claims that various religious groups make about their gods, I do not accept that idea that we can start with something untrue, and end up in a place that is better than if we had started with the truth.

I'd say this last as "I do not accept that idea that we can start with a completely unnecessary assumption, and end up in a place that is better than if we had started without making unnecessary assumptions at all.

That is a better statement of my view, thanks.

[grumbler]

The Golden Rule has no religious requirement though. It is not necessary to believe in any god to think that we should treat each other the way we wish to be treated.

The Golden Rule as a secular philosophical statement long predate its incorporation into religious philosophy.

[Valmy]

Their point seems to be that religion has net social utility even if god does not exist. I (and Dawkins) disagree.

My problem with this argument is it presents the idea that we can and should just do away with religion.  I am skeptical that this is possible.  Spirituality and mysticism, whatever exactly that may be, seems so imprinted and essential to the human experience that it is always going to be around.  I am constantly amazed how this continues to be true even amongst groups that have rejected formal religion and most of its dogmas.  So I just decided to try to find a religion without ridiculous dogmas and had values as positive as possible.  Thus I hoped to satisfy any spiritual needs my family, or myself, happened to have with as little of the baggage as possible.

But maybe I am wrong and people will eagerly embrace an entirely materialistic rationalist view of the world.  I just do not think it is likely based on human history and how things are going currently.

[Berkut]

The Golden Rule has no religious requirement though. It is not necessary to believe in any god to think that we should treat each other the way we wish to be treated.

The Golden Rule as a secular philosophical statement long predate its incorporation into religious philosophy.

Indeed. It is, IMO, a completely secular idea that has been used by nearly every major moral and ethical system, whether it be religious or otherwise.

[Valmy]

The Golden Rule as a secular philosophical statement long predate its incorporation into religious philosophy.

Somehow I bet it actually predates secular philosophy and was originally part of some sort of spiritual belief.  But it hardly matters really.

[Valmy]

The Golden Rule has no religious requirement though. It is not necessary to believe in any god to think that we should treat each other the way we wish to be treated.

The Golden Rule as a secular philosophical statement long predate its incorporation into religious philosophy.

Indeed. It is, IMO, a completely secular idea that has been used by nearly every major moral and ethical system, whether it be religious or otherwise.

Color me skeptical that there existed anything in ancient times that was 'purely secular'.

[Berkut]

The Golden Rule has no religious requirement though. It is not necessary to believe in any god to think that we should treat each other the way we wish to be treated.

The Golden Rule as a secular philosophical statement long predate its incorporation into religious philosophy.

Indeed. It is, IMO, a completely secular idea that has been used by nearly every major moral and ethical system, whether it be religious or otherwise.

Color me skeptical that there existed anything in ancient times that was 'purely secular'.

My conclusion is actually based on the fact that it is such a ubiquitous idea that it's origin cannot be reasonably presumed to have originated from some singular religious system. I see what you mean by the impossibility of separating non-religious views from a historical perspective.

[grumbler]

Color me skeptical that there existed anything in ancient times that was 'purely secular'.

Confucianism is pretty secular; even when it talks about heaven and "the Mandate of Heaven" it doesn't really suppose that heaven exists except in an abstract sense.

[Barrister]

It is fine to say that as an atheist you are not believe there is a god.  But it is quite another to say that christianity (or any other religion) has no value because it is based on a false premise.

What is the difference between the two?

One can analyze the contribution religious belief has in the world without making a judgment as to whether or not there is a god.

But it would require some serious amorality to do so.

Yes it is going in circles with you.  It is only amoral if one assumes that the only christian or religious belief you are considering are of the literalist fundy variety.

Uhm no. Even if you have a non-literal approach you are still teaching (well, the ones who teach it do) that there is an omninopent God, his son and the whole guidance things about how to live, plus heaven and the angels and all assorted stuff that comes with the package regardless of how literally you are taking the scriptures.

It is amoral to teach all of that if they are not true. IMHO.

That is of course independent of the objective analysis of Christianity`s contributions, to a degree, but it is 100% related if you want to evaluate the moral contributions.

I dunno man.  I'm teaching my kids that there is this mythical person named Santa Claus, who can see whether or not they have been bad or good, and will reward them accordingly, knowing full well that there is no such person.  I do not think that it is amoral to do so.

[crazy canuck]

I think this illuminates a fundamental disagreement that we cannot resolve.

If I have any "fundamentalist" belief it is that the truth is better than deception, and that humans are better off in the long run with more information rather than less. I do not accept the claim that there is utility in being misled, no matter how good it might appear to some.

Since I am an atheist, and reject the claims that various religious groups make about their gods, I do not accept that idea that we can start with something untrue, and end up in a place that is better than if we had started with the truth.

I think you are correct that there is a fundamental difference.  You keep saying that something that cannot be proven or disproven (ie an article of faith) is false.  I have already explained my diffiuclty with this particular argument and so I dont see a way to constructively move this discussion forward.

[crazy canuck]

The Golden Rule has no religious requirement though. It is not necessary to believe in any god to think that we should treat each other the way we wish to be treated.

The Golden Rule as a secular philosophical statement long predate its incorporation into religious philosophy.

Well you were there, so tell me, what philosphy precisely was there that long predated religion?