Atheism and genocide

live2thewire

Where God is denied, or opposed, soon Man and his dignity will also be denied and disregarded.

These are the words of the Bishop of Ausburg.

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20090413-18607.html

Rev Hellfire

People say a lot of things.

chughes

He would say that, wouldn't he ? Where does that leave Father Brendan Smith, Father Sean Fortune, Father Ivan Payne, etc, etc, etc..... All good god fearing men..I don't think.

Galvasean

I shall see your Nazism and Communism... and raise you a few Crusades.

live2thewire

stop aiming this **** at the op, he thinks this guy is talking ****.

Galvasean

live2thewire wrote: »

stop aiming this **** at the op, he thinks this guy is talking ****.

Referring to yourself in the third person?
Glad you (he?) think(s?) that way.

Dades

live2thewire wrote: »

stop aiming this **** at the op, he thinks this guy is talking ****.

Do us a favour and turn down your Opressometer. Nobody thinks you're the Bishop of Whereveritis.

liah

Galvasean wrote: »

I shall see your Nazism and Communism... and raise you a few Crusades.

Alright feck off right now with the Nazi/Communist allegations.

1) Hitler was not an atheist, despite what religious propaganda would have you believe.

2) Communism had feck all to do with religion or atheism, it was political and not religious, so it hardly qualifies, not even remotely on the same level as the Crusades.

marco_polo

live2thewire wrote: »

stop aiming this **** at the op, he thinks this guy is talking ****.

Forget to log into the second account?

liah wrote: »

Alright feck off right now with the Nazi/Communist allegations.

1) Hitler was not an atheist, despite what religious propaganda would have you believe.

2) Communism had feck all to do with religion or atheism, it was political and not religious, so it hardly qualifies, not even remotely on the same level as the Crusades.

Methinks you missed his point.

Zillah

liah wrote: »

Alright feck off right now with the Nazi/Communist allegations.

1) Hitler was not an atheist, despite what religious propaganda would have you believe.

2) Communism had feck all to do with religion or atheism, it was political and not religious, so it hardly qualifies, not even remotely on the same level as the Crusades.

Actually I'd argue that Nazism and Communism were very religious. Cult of Personality, conformity, top-down dictated morality, heightened sense of one's own importance in the world, subjective values masquerading as objectivity...

Anyway, in response to the Bishop's comment I would say; Humanism, you ignorant jerk.

marco_polo wrote: »

Forget to log into the second account?

Yeah I noticed that too. *slow clap*

liah

marco_polo wrote: »

Methinks you missed his point.

No, it's just that some religious twat's bound to read it and think that Hitler's an atheist and Communism has to do with trying to force atheist views down people's throats.

Galvasean

liah wrote: »

Alright feck off right now with the Nazi/Communist allegations.

1) Hitler was not an atheist, despite what religious propaganda would have you believe.

2) Communism had feck all to do with religion or atheism, it was political and not religious, so it hardly qualifies, not even remotely on the same level as the Crusades.

I'm going to quote Bugs Bunny in saying, "He don't know me very well, do he?" :pac:

marco_polo

liah wrote: »

No, it's just that some religious twat's bound to read it and think that Hitler's an atheist and Communism has to do with trying to force atheist views down people's throats.

Ah don't worry chances are they already do. Although if they are creationists though the will probably use Galvasean's quote at some stage. I can see the headlines on answeringenesis.ie now.

'Millitant Dinosaur-Loving Atheist Finally Admits Communist - Nazi -Atheism Conspiracy;

Húrin

This reminds me of a discussion on the other forum:

Wicknight wrote:

The argument that because we are here we were meant to be here simply shows the egotistical view point that a lot of believers come from (not entirely unwarranted, we have evolved to consider ourselves important as a survival instinct). But it would be a mistake to consider that because we feel we are inherently important that means we actually are.

There is little evidence to suggest that from the universes point of view we are more than one of many complex chemical reactions. The fact that this may be unpleasant to some explains why they would embrace a religion that teaches otherwise, but it doesn't justify the idea taht the universe is different than how it looks.

Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance. Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.


Zillah, Humanism is a secularised version of Christian teleology, as persuasively argued by John Gray in his book Straw Dogs. It doesn't come from atheism, but from a desire to suppress the implications of atheism.

marco_polo

Húrin wrote: »

This reminds me of a discussion on the other forum:



Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance. Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.


Zillah, Humanism is a secularised version of Christian teleology, as persuasively argued by John Gray in his book Straw Dogs. It doesn't come from atheism, but from a desire to suppress the implications of atheism.

Why when discussing objective morality must theists alway fall back on the super easy options of killing or child abuse as their only examples?

pH

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance. Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.

I'm confused, isn't this Christianity's current (and historic) position? Is the Bishop annoyed that atheism is moving in on his turf? Are you and him moaning that all these non-religious reasons for mass killing are inferior to your religious ones?

pts

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance. Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.

I would fully agree with Wicknight on that point. However I wouldn't necessary draw the same conclusion as you have.
I don't think it's a particularly human trait not to kill someone in their own species on sight. In fact I can't think of any animal that does that (even though there are probably a few)
I would argue that animals don't think they are some kind of elevated species in the universe, or think that there is a God judging them and because of that don't kill their own. I would argue that that is evolved behaviour. Therefore humans don't need to think they are objectively important to think that killing other humans is wrong.

Nodin

live2thewire wrote: »

stop aiming this **** at the op, he thinks this guy is talking ****.

Hail, Caesar.

Hurin wrote:

Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong.

Doesn't nessecarily follow. As we're (generally) the most intelligent sentient life form on the planet, are each unique, and are given but one relatively short span its indeed a grave thing to 'bump off' any of us. There is no God to sort us out, as it were, no recompense for earthly suffering, no-rebirth and no eternal life. I'd say those were compelling reasons for being careful to keep the safety on.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance. Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.

While I wouldn't on the face of it disagree with this, I think you are giving the Bishop credit for too much thought.

The Bishop wrote:

“Where God is denied, or opposed, soon Man and his dignity will also be denied and disregarded.”

His comments are a straightforward 'godlessness leads to lawlessness' sentiment.

The lack of a deity does remove our self-proclaimed importance and a fixed moral code, but fortunately we have evolved a compunction with regard to killing one another and other anti-social activities.

And of course the Bishop doesn't mention that whether or not what he says is true has no bearing on whether theism is made up or not.

pH

Dades wrote: »

The lack of a deity does remove our self-proclaimed importance and a fixed moral code, but fortunately we have evolved a compunction with regard to killing one another and other anti-social activities.

This is just not true, I truly cannot understand how you or anyone can claim that a deity gives anyone a 'fixed moral code'. Pretty much everything that we find abhorrent has been at one time justified by belief in a deity, including paedophilia, mass murder, rape, slavery and genocide.

Now you could argue that all these can be allowed under a 'moral code', although it would be probably better termed an immoral code, and you probably could play with words and argue that these ever-changing codes are indeed somehow 'fixed' at each instance in time but it's clearly just not possible to go from the statement "God exists" to a moral code in any meaningful way.

Dades

pH wrote: »

This is just not true, I truly cannot understand how you or anyone can claim that a deity gives anyone a 'fixed moral code'.

tbh I was willing to overlook that particular elephant in the room for simplicity's sake.

Now we're off though!

Tigger

Dades wrote: »

Do us a favour and turn down your Opressometer. Nobody thinks you're the Bishop of Whereveritis.

i did

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance. Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.

The religious really do have a hang up about objectivity. A human being doesn't need objective worth for a person to consider them very important.

Zillah, Humanism is a secularised version of Christian teleology, as persuasively argued by John Gray in his book Straw Dogs. It doesn't come from atheism, but from a desire to suppress the implications of atheism.

Jesus wasn't the first or the last to preach compassion. Christianity does not have the monopoly on respect for human life. Atheism has no implications unless you're a sociopath , in which case you have all sorts of problems regardless.

gaynorvader

Morality is born of society's rules, and many societies are influenced by religion, this leads to morality being influenced by religion. This is why I find it strange that in earlier centuries, the church believed nakedness to be immoral. In the Bible, didn't Adam and Eve get ejected from the Garden of Eden because God caught them wearing clothes and deduced they'd eaten the forbidden fruit(so he probably wasn't everywhere or omnipotent at that time)? Surely then, God doesn't think nudity is bad then?

Dades

gaynorvader wrote: »

Surely then, God doesn't think nudity is bad then?

More importantly, why would an omnipotent, omniscient entity who transcends time and space, and is responsible for the creation of the entire universe actually give a damn what us monkeys are using since our fur fell off.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.

Do you have a problem with subjectivism? Can you not imagine a society that finds murder and rape subjectively wrong and therefore, it is made law accordingly?

Also you seem to be making the false assumption that what is true is necessarily going to be beneficial for humans. This is hardly the case, reality does not care whether we agree with it or not. Irregardless of your opinion that without universal morality atheists would become rabid murderers, it still doesn't mean your sense of reality is any more correct.

You are falsely weighing up 2 outcomes, viewing the one that you think is more desirable and assuming this also means it is proportionally more correct. This is a complete logical fallacy.

Selkies

Within the third reich all that was permitted on the alter of a church was a sword and a copy of mein kampf.

During the crusades, the Bible was in latin.

In Stalinist Russia, the Bible was illegal.

The bishop has a point, Christianity presents many obstacles to authoritarian regimes and genocide.
The illusion that there is one with power over you who can see everything you do gives you an unparalleled sense of consequence to every action you take.

I guess what I'd argue is that there are other things that cause this sense of consequence that are far more practical.

philologos

live2thewire wrote: »

These are the words of the Bishop of Ausburg.

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20090413-18607.html

I agree with the Bishop on this one.

Where God has been suppressed the value of life seems to be lessened in a lot of respects. The dignity of man in relation to sexuality in particular has been lessened as people pursue more liberal agendas to these things other than the one which has been revealed to man. Just take a look, prostitution, one night stands, increases in the rates of STI infections, a departure from the traditional family unit, adultery being seen as acceptable, monogamy seen as archaic. I am not saying that atheists, and agnostics advocate this, but rather what I would advocate is the view that as we have seen increased secularism we have seen increased liberalism concerning these issues. That's just one of many areas that one could raise concerning the topic.

Then one could look at the resorting to drugs and alcohol to suppress pain, and the despair of having unfulfilled questions in peoples lives. I just can't help but feeling that God can help them, and that God will help them. This attitude isn't seen as an option for people in many cases however.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Then one could look at the resorting to drugs and alcohol to suppress pain, and the despair of having unfulfilled questions in peoples lives.

I agree look at Irish society of course I don't think turning to religion provides any answers but solidarity and community in for want of a better word not-knowing-but-a-good-feelingness (don't want to use the work beginning with i it always seems to strong to me).

Jakkass wrote: »

I just can't help but feeling that God can help them, and that God will help them. This attitude isn't seen as an option for people in many cases however.

Again I don't think its God more Christianity/Islam/Buddhism and where religion is absent I think there is a massive void in terms of community and solidarity in Ireland anyway.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

More importantly, why would an omnipotent, omniscient entity who transcends time and space, and is responsible for the creation of the entire universe actually give a damn what us monkeys apes are using since our fur fell off.

FYP

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Just take a look, prostitution, one night stands, increases in the rates of STI infections, a departure from the traditional family unit, adultery being seen as acceptable, monogamy seen as archaic.

Still and all though, we're now living in the longest period of uninterrupted peace in continental Europe since before christianity acquired control of the Roman Empire.

If it comes down to people having to have sex with each other instead of going out and organizing international-level mass-slaughters every few years, then frankly, I'll take the sex anytime.

Out of interest, who has ever said that adultery is acceptable? Apart from religious preachers telling religious believers that atheists think this, of course.

pH

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, who has ever said that adultery is acceptable? Apart from religious preachers telling religious believers that atheists think this, of course.

Maybe me?

Possibly this is where the fire and brimstone lot may find liberal secular ideas genuinely hard to fathom.

Let me ask a question, "Should society through its laws prosecute adulterers?"

I'd answer no to that question, I certainly don't think that adultery is a criminal matter or that adulterers should be stoned, beaten, imprisoned, fined or made do community service. Does that mean that in Jackass' eyes (or other Christians') I find adultery acceptable?

I really find it hard to fathom exactly what Jackass and others mean by posts like that, what exactly is he calling for? Does he want his morals enforced by law on the rest of us?

Or does he feel that people who don't currently believe in his his God will make a logical decision to believe for the betterment of society?

Or is there a third option I'm missing?

gaynorvader

pH wrote: »

Maybe me?

Possibly this is where the fire and brimstone lot may find liberal secular ideas genuinely hard to fathom.

Let me ask a question, "Should society through its laws prosecute adulterers?"

I'd answer no to that question, I certainly don't think that adultery is a criminal matter or that adulterers should be stoned, beaten, imprisoned, fined or made do community service. Does that mean that in Jackass' eyes (or other Christians') I find adultery acceptable?

I really find it hard to fathom exactly what Jackass and others mean by posts like that, what exactly is he calling for? Does he want his morals enforced by law on the rest of us?

Or does he feel that people who don't currently believe in his his God will make a logical decision to believe for the betterment of society?

Or is there a third option I'm missing?

I see where you're coming from, adultery is technically already here, if a husband and wife get a divorce and the husband retains custody of the kids, marries a second wife and has children by her, technically that's adultery, isn't it? At least from the children's view. Of course I would point out that problems almost always arise between kids of the old mother and kids of the new one, so I'd consider adultery wrong from a moral standpoint.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Wicknight correctly implies that a naturalistic worldview must decentre the human race from the positions of importance.

With relation to a purpose for the universe, which was the context of the discussion

Húrin wrote: »

Atheism removes the authority from beliefs that humans are objectively important, and that killing them is objectively wrong. I think that's where the bishop is coming from.

The argument that humans are objectively important is a pretty dangerous one because it ignores any need to argue why we are important or valuable.

The objective argument is that we just are (or because God says so which is actually a subjective argument but you guys treat it as if it was objective)

The problem with this is that there is no argument there. Unless someone already starts with the similar position there is nothing to convince someone of this position, there is no logic there to appeal to someone. Saying humans are important simply because your god says they are requires that someone accept that both your god exists and that this is what he says.

By removing the idea that humans are important just because forces humans to come up with rational reasons that don't require religious faith to accept, why we should be considered important. This leads to ideas such as the golden rule which has influenced most of modern ethics.

kiffer

pH wrote: »

Maybe me?

I guess it's what you consider adultery ... as a liberal person I see no moral problem with people having, for example, an open marriage... as long as everyone (directly) involved is happy with the situation and knows what's going on (which I'm guessing is rare)... but to the Christian that is clearly adultery, and morally wrong.
To me adultery is not just sex out side of a marriage but rather cheating, secret affairs and so on, which I do consider wrong.

kiffer

gaynorvader wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, adultery is technically already here, if a husband and wife get a divorce and the husband retains custody of the kids, marries a second wife and has children by her, technically that's adultery, isn't it?

No... the divorce ends the first marriage and now the man is married to his new wife.

At least from the children's view. Of course I would point out that problems almost always arise between kids of the old mother and kids of the new one, so I'd consider adultery wrong from a moral standpoint.

I guess that depend on the people involved... but I know a number of people raising children that are not their own and they seem to get on fine.

pH

gaynorvader wrote: »

I see where you're coming from, adultery is technically already here, if a husband and wife get a divorce and the husband retains custody of the kids, marries a second wife and has children by her, technically that's adultery, isn't it? At least from the children's view. Of course I would point out that problems almost always arise between kids of the old mother and kids of the new one, so I'd consider adultery wrong from a moral standpoint.

I thinking you're making it a little more complicated than it needs be.

Adultery is the voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and another person who is not his or her spouse, though in many places it is only considered adultery when a married woman has sexual relations with someone who is not her husband and in others it is only considered adultery when a married woman has sexual relations with someone without the permission of her husband. In most cases, in Western countries, only the married party is said to have committed adultery, and if both parties are married (but not to each other) then they both commit separate acts of adultery. In other countries, both parties to the adultery are considered guilty, while in others again only the woman is able to commit adultery and to be considered guilty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

kiffer wrote: »

I guess it's what you consider adultery ... as a liberal person I see no moral problem with people having, for example, an open marriage... as long as everyone (directly) involved is happy with the situation and knows what's going on (which I'm guessing is rare)... but to the Christian that is clearly adultery, and morally wrong.
To me adultery is not just sex out side of a marriage but rather cheating, secret affairs and so on, which I do consider wrong.

Fine, you consider it wrong, but is it acceptable? If a husband or wife cheats on their spouse do you feel that this is a matter that society needs to deal with (as would be the case in say physical abuse), or is it a private matter between them?

I don't feel that people should be punished for adultery, I don't feel that the government should be investing millions in anti-adultery education, I'm just asking the question does than mean that I find adultery "acceptable"?

gaynorvader

kiffer wrote: »

No... the divorce ends the first marriage and now the man is married to his new wife.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, which has been adopted by the state. Many religions don't ( or at least used not to ) accept a divorce, so that person would still be 'married' to his first wife.

kiffer wrote: »

I guess that depend on the people involved... but I know a number of people raising children that are not their own and they seem to get on fine.

I didn't mean to insinuate that all children in these circumstances didn't get along and I'm sorry if I did. I meant only that most of them don't get along. In my experience anyway.

kiffer

gaynorvader wrote: »

Marriage is a religious ceremony, which has been adopted by the state. Many religions don't ( or at least used not to ) accept a divorce, so that person would still be 'married' to his first wife.

Marriage is both a civil and religious state.
To be pedantic the Marriage is not the ceremoney but the state the couple is in after they become married. I the eyes of the law a marriage ends at divorce. In the eyes of God? Well you're on the A+A forum now so we're a bit freer with that here... If a couple is so poorly matched and wed that their relationship collapses were they ever truly one in the eyes of God? or were they just going through the motions?

I didn't mean to insinuate that all children in these circumstances didn't get along and I'm sorry if I did. I meant only that most of them don't get along. In my experience anyway.

And I also speak only from my own experience on this one... maybe something more concrete than our little personal anecdotes is needed. ;-)

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

monkeys apes

FYP

Hey if it's close enough for Stephen Hawking - it's close enough for me!

Stephen Hawking wrote:

"We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special."

kiffer

pH wrote: »

Fine, you consider it wrong, but is it acceptable?

If my partner was cheating on me? No I don't find that acceptable. If a friend of my was cheating on his partner? It would certainly lower my opinion of that friend (be cause they are showing themselves to be deceitful (amongst other things), if they deceive others how do I know they are not deceitful to me?)... but I do have a fair number of friends that have open relationships and marriages and I don't consider that unacceptable, even if it's not my cup o'tea.

If a husband or wife cheats on their spouse do you feel that this is a matter that society needs to deal with (as would be the case in say physical abuse), or is it a private matter between them?

Private matter, but legitimate grounds for ending marriage contract.
Not a crime, but a married couple may be contractually obliged to be faithful so I guess the wife could sue... but that would be a civil matter and not a criminal one.

I don't feel that people should be punished for adultery, I don't feel that the government should be investing millions in anti-adultery education, I'm just asking the question does than mean that I find adultery "acceptable"?

Do you find adultery acceptable? how should anyone but you know the answer to that? Maybe you just don't think it's a matter for the law... which it's not.

pH

kiffer wrote: »

Do you find adultery acceptable? how should anyone but you know the answer to that? Maybe you just don't think it's a matter for the law... which it's not.

Because accept does not mean condone, nor does it mean support, it means something more like tolerate. And this isn't in the narrow sense of accepting it from your partner or spouse, this is in Jackass' context of accepting it in a wider societal context. So I guess what I'm saying is that given I don't think anything should be done about it (laws/teaching/punishment) I guess I'm saying that yes, in some ways I find adultery acceptable.

kiffer

pH wrote: »

Because accept does not mean condone, nor does it mean support, it means something more like tolerate. And this isn't in the narrow sense of accepting it from your partner or spouse, this is in Jackass' context of accepting it in a wider societal context. So I guess what I'm saying is that given I don't think anything should be done about it (laws/teaching/punishment) I guess I'm saying that yes, in some ways I find adultery acceptable.

Seems more like indifferent to me
wait... wasn't this thread about genocide?

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree with the Bishop on this one.

Where God has been suppressed the value of life seems to be lessened in a lot of respects. The dignity of man in relation to sexuality in particular has been lessened as people pursue more liberal agendas to these things other than the one which has been revealed to man. Just take a look, prostitution, one night stands, increases in the rates of STI infections, a departure from the traditional family unit, adultery being seen as acceptable, monogamy seen as archaic. I am not saying that atheists, and agnostics advocate this, but rather what I would advocate is the view that as we have seen increased secularism we have seen increased liberalism concerning these issues. That's just one of many areas that one could raise concerning the topic.

Yes, I too hope for a day when religion rules the world and men like Ted Haggard are the moral authorities of humanity. Then, and only then will we no longer have people getting high on meth and having illicit gay sex.

Then one could look at the resorting to drugs and alcohol to suppress pain, and the despair of having unfulfilled questions in peoples lives. I just can't help but feeling that God can help them, and that God will help them. This attitude isn't seen as an option for people in many cases however.

Yes, I too hope for a day when the only difficult questions we face are "Why does a benevolent God let bad things happen?" and "Why create life only to torture it and send it to hell?"



You're so unbelievably full of it Jackass. A little bit more than usual.

gaynorvader

Zillah wrote: »

You're so unbelievably full of it Jackass. A little bit more than usual.

I hope by 'it' you mean God's divine wisdom! :eek:
(No offence meant Jakkass.)

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I am not saying that atheists, and agnostics advocate this, but rather what I would advocate is the view that as we have seen increased secularism we have seen increased liberalism concerning these issues. That's just one of many areas that one could raise concerning the topic.

When a society rebels against repressive social norms it is normal that they would swing to other extremes. The 60s were all about irresponsible activity (drugs, free love, communions, hippies) because the younger generation were rebelling against the repressive social norms of the 50s and what was expected of them. In the process of rebellion they swing way out to the other side in an orgy of rebellion and experimentation.

But then they sung back again, not to the ridiculous state of the 50s, but trying to find middle ground. And society is still trying to find that.

Same with gays in the 70s and 80s, who embraced a care free existence presisely because they were shunned and oppressed by mainstream society, but who have become more mainstream themselves as society as become more tolerant.

There is a very strong human desire to do something because you are told not to do it, and there is often a disconnect between wanting to do it because you are told you shouldn't and actually wanting to do it. This is why these swings take place, they happen as acts of rebellions and after a while people start to sort out what actually makes them happy and what they were doing simply because it was illicit.

I very much doubt any of the atheists here partake in the majority of the activities you listed (if they do I'm going to the wrong meetings), not because we have some strong moral objection but simply because we don't want to.

There is a lack of faith in humanity present in religion, particularly Christianity, that becomes some what of a self fulfilling prophecy. Christianity bans certain things so some people desire to do them simply to rebel against this doctrine and authority, and then Christian society goes "See, that is why we need Christianity"

I think it is far better that rather than following rigid doctrine of moral and immoral that society encourages people to figure out what they themselves want. One of the big failings of the 60s feminist movement was that it splintered into the men hating groups and the free love groups (where women were expected to act like men simply because they could), with neither group helping women figure out what they actually wanted.

For a lot of women the repression of 50s society was simply replaces with the ideas of how a "liberated" woman should behave, dictated some what by men eager to have lots of sex.

Despite Christian protests to the contrary without God we do not descend into animal like behaviour. We descend into animal like behaviour for a little bit as society rebels against what they were told they shouldn't do, but emerge from the other side having a much better understand of what we actually don't want to do.

Simply because you have the increased liberalism to explore this doesn't mean everyone actually wants to do these things. Evolution has provides us with a pretty good set of instincts of how to produce happiness (happiness is after all simply a human state), we just need to listen to these a bit more rather than assuming that we should always want to do what we are told we shouldn't. And I trust evolution far more than your book written by a bunch of oppressive men trying to dictate social norms.

gaynorvader

I like the Bible, it's a highly entertaining read. I was reading the NT recently (Matthew I think) and it went straight from talking of ten virgins with lamps waiting for the bridesgroom with half been locked out of the wedding to the parable about the three servents entrusted with money while their Lord was away. I found the virgin one particuarly interesting as 5 of them had oil for their lamps and five didn't, but when the 5 that didn't asked to borrow oil from the other five, they were refused. Lest the five with oil would not have enough. So the five without went to buy oil, then the bridesgroom came and they were locked out of the wedding (which I think at this point is likened to the kingdom of God). Surely here, the Bible is discouraging charity? I don't know, it just makes me wonder how Christians can claim there book is the perfect guide to ethics and morality.

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree with the Bishop on this one.

Where God has been suppressed the value of life seems to be lessened in a lot of respects. The dignity of man in relation to sexuality in particular has been lessened as people pursue more liberal agendas to these things other than the one which has been revealed to man. Just take a look, prostitution,....

Never did I imagine that the oldest trade was to be blamed on something thats still a minority view.....

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Never did I imagine that the oldest trade was to be blamed on something thats still a minority view.....

I didn't blame it on atheism or agnosticism, actually I explicitly said that it was due to the secularisation of the country that these things started to become more prominent, and I think it's pretty evident that that is indeed true.

MatthewVII

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't blame it on atheism or agnosticism, actually I explicitly said that it was due to the secularisation of the country that these things started to become more prominent, and I think it's pretty evident that that is indeed true.

Pretty evident? You are pointing out two trends and claiming there is a connection. It reminds me of the classical fallacy of a man studying the impact of hair colour on health, finding grey-haired people to be the least healthy (due to age) and writing an article on the dangers of having grey hair.

The trends you mention could be tied to any changes in the last number of years, like joining the EU (I think those saucy frenchmen are corrupting us) to economic success or advances in medicine, which mean people are leading fuller, better lives as they have more time, money and capability to do what they really want to do.

If the price of losing religion is an increase in personal freedoms, it is one society will be glad to pay.

As an aside, I could draw a correlation between the fall of religion and the rising literacy rate, lengthening average life span and vastly increased quality of life. Doesn't make it a real association.

philologos

Actually MatthewVII, wouldn't having the freedom to gain whatever beliefs you want not be more to do with freedom than the sheer losing of it. Losing religion can happen through a number of ways, one of them coercion. That isn't freedom.