The only thing thats real...

On what do you base that?

How would you account for those people with religious moral views on (for instance) homosexuality and the role of women which are actually quite hateful? How would you account for those secular social and charitable institutions (the welfare state, Oxfam, Amnesty etc) which have strong ideas about right and wrong and yet which have no basis in religion?

 

Your a good boy then, would you really want me to find an example of someone who is not ?

I've not argued that religious texts or that fundamentalism are good, but rather the development of awareness of other is.

 

watching the news

They are bigots, find em everywhere.

They do good but are too narrow in the viewpoint to influence the wider society.

Look there are lots of examples of good and bad in every institution, I cant justify everything on the planet.

I restate, apart from the religious institutes there is no moral directive. I am duty bound to raise my children with a premise of care and consideration of others. Oxfam, Amnesty and the ilk are in no position and have no desire to educate the children in moral behaviour.

You believe in the inherent good of man, I don't, I believe in his inherent selfishness.

 

Do news reports tell you what the religious beliefs of the ne'er-do-wells they report on are? How are those views relevant?

Don't you think atheists might also be able to raise their children with ideas of care and consideration to others? Our moral framework exists wherever socialisation occurs - within a secular state school system, or where moral ideas are passed from parents to children. I suppose I'm asking why you think it is only superstition which can instil moral values when I think we have established those moral values are quite capable of existing elsewhere?

I don't believe in the inherent good of mankind, I believe mankind is naturally capable of both good and bad, religions are quite capable of doing both as are those who have no faith...

 

No one would doubt that you have raised your children with the utmost respect for morality. However, that does not, I would argue, exclude atheists from doing the same. You are right that Oxfam, Amnesty etc are narrower in their vision, but in the case of Amnesty in particular, it serves as a rational-legal guaranteur of morality outside the religious framework. Concepts of human rights are ingrained into international society through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Amnesty exists as its watchdog. This is something it can fulfil much more effectively outside the remit of religious, political or economic interests....

 

All getting a bit technical now ain't it, what if, you said, x+y=z.............

Why are you here, what is the purpose of your existence, what is the purpose of the universe, what happens when I die ? All big thoughts from childhood, remember ?
Have you both discovered the answers, or learned not to care ? Though why I'm asking you anything on my thread I don't know.

Contemplation of God enables the expansion of the mind, it enables exploration of a fourth dimension, to deny the possibility, even though it may be superstitious, is a regressive step, imho. I like to encourage my children to explore it and consider those that don't as lacking.

 

hm i havent read all the way through this and so am probably not in the best position to respond and will read through it properly later.

however, raised in the church as a believer i was brought up with good moral standing. during highschool i began questioning His existance and came to the conclusion that He wasnt there. I continued attending church regularly in the hope that I would 'find' what everyone else seemed to have but it wasnt to be. Now, as an atheist I still consider myself to be of good moral standing. Without God and religion there are basic truths in life which go beyond religion imo.

 

To be fair, that's not quite what you were saying. Of course we should encourage our children to explore these ideas for themselves. What I found interesting was your apparent belief that there is no such thing as secular morality, that atheists were somehow less moral than religionists, and by extension that they would be incapable of raising children with moral values.

I would say that a thoughtful secularist/atheist is quite capable of having (in fact I would argue more likely to have) reasoned and responsible ideas on issues of morality as someone who subscribes to a particular dogma. Christians tend to have strong moral views on homosexuality, but that doesn't make those views right. Having a strong sense of morality is not a virtue if the content of those moral ideas are bigoted and intolerant. I feel very sorry for the child brought up with strong Christian values who discovers his sexuality is different from how it 'should' be. It's far more important to have reasoned, considered, nuanced and responsible ideas about such matters than simply to have strong ideas such as those found in religious dogma. It's more important that the parent is thoughtful and responsible, than that they provide religion as a surrogate moral teacher...

 

In christianity however lithium, not everyone carries the same beliefs. People take what they want from the bible and use it in a way which works for them. There are the purist christians who are anti homosexuality and follow the bible as it is written, and then there are the christians who say, yeah i believe in God, but this writing is outdated, and I will follow the concepts which work for me, but I dont think it is all accurate for modern day living. My Dad is a pretty open minded guy, he believes in God, he doesnt go to church and im sure if you asked him to make a quote from the bible he couldnt. He doesnt live his life around his religion, but he still has a belief in God.

At the end of the day, we all choose routes which work for us and as long as we keep an open mind and empathise with those around us, treating people as we wish to be treated, show respect, then I dont think it matters whether that originates in a religious or atheist background.

 

I entirely agree, autumn_jewels. In fact I would say using religion as a comparative rather than an absolute source of ideas - by picking the bits that best fit our inherent sense of morality - is itself a form of secularism. It would be a fool who ignored any source of ideas, whether those ideas come from religious tradition, or from atheistic secular humanist tradition. The danger lies in closing down ideas by excluding any particular tradition or uncritically focusing on one limited set of ideas - that's a form of indoctrination.

 

become a parent dude, everything you do or say is indoctrination..

 

This is becoming all a little zealous Lithium wouldn't you say. You ask me a question, I try and answer. You decide my response is not to your taste and allmost get to the point of harranguing me for my ideas. Not good.

This thread was posted so you could get to know me better if you wanted to, not for you to come and give me the third degree over some of the cuff remarks about atheists.

Cheers.

 

Zealous? Haranguing? Well I don't see that at all, but sorry if that's what you think.

I think the Karma Kafe is a place to get to know people and gives an opportunity for debate. What I was doing was debating your views in order to get to the bottom of how and why you think the way you do. This also gives you an opportunity to articulate and think through your opinions, which I always find is the best way of refining my views. It's not at all about being "not to my taste", debate is about rationally thinking through and arguing the issues raised.

Again, apologies, I thought I was engaging in intelligent and thoughtful debate. I honestly can't see the "zealous" or "haranguing" thing at all, and to be honest that accusation has floored me a little...

 

How can I debate ideas with you when posts from you link my thoughts with intolerance and bigotry. It's all a bit grandmother and eggs. I know people abuse each other, surely you know I know this, it can be used as an anti argument for nearly everything not just religion?

The subject does hold an interest for me but to have to argue against bad examples is just pointlesss. Try thinking about the majority and their emotional behaviour rather than extremists, it probably makes for a boring conversation though.

I started from the premise that I believe religious education is good for children. I have no interest in my ideas being correct really, I try my best but know ultimately I am bound to fail in that regard.
I don't really give a toss about christianity either or any other religion for that matter, but I do care about consideration.

 

Moving on in an egg related way...


What's your favourite method of preparing eggs?

 

Chuckles.........

The only time I eat an egg as an egg is with sunday morning breakfast, and then it is usually prepared by poaching in a poaching pan.

 

Is breakfast your most important meal of the day?

 

They're all important. I couldn't get through to lunch without breakfast so maybe it is.

 

If you could go back and relive one day in your life, which would it be and why? What, if anything, would you do differently?

 

I didn't link your thoughts with intolerance and bigotry, and I'm fairly sure from reading your posts that you are very far from being either.

Any ideology / doctrine / dogma tends to contain some elements of these though, and this subject holds a great fascination for me. I was very interested in the issues raised and was trying to discuss them - hopefully thoughtfully and intelligently - to ascertain what your thinking on the subject was. You've always seemed like an interesting person and I was genuinely interested in knowing what you thought and how you dealt with these ideas.

How you got from that to zealous and haranguing I'm still unclear, hopefully it should be obvious that that couldn't be further from my intentions. Since you apparently don't appreciate the style or subject of debate I'll know to avoid it. Sorry for any offence caused.

What's your favourite colour?