Cherry picking isn't a bad architectural principle per se. We can however discuss whether one should name the resulting edifice after the quarry.

(January 15, 2015 at 10:53 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 10:47 am)polar bear Wrote: if you don't believe in god and want to follow the teachings of jesus, you have to believe in god. Jesus said he was the son of god....period. So either he is not telling the truth or is a lunatic

Mmm, I think there would be some leniency. Again, if we think of secular Buddhism, I think its members believe that the practices are good for mental health etc. but they don't go as far to say that life is about escaping suffering and that you'll be reincarnated. I think for Christian Atheism, it might be the same thing where the believer would lead a life where e.g. turning the other cheek is preferable because it might reduce arguments or w/e, but claims about Jesus' divinity are just outright rejected.

I know atheists aren't in the business of defining what a "real" Christian is, but isn't accepting Jesus as god kind of the entire foundation of Christianity and Christian philosophy? Buddhism doesn't have the divinity claims as a pillar of its philosophy, so I'm not sure the comparison can be made that smoothly.

(January 15, 2015 at 10:55 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 10:53 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Mmm, I think there would be some leniency. Again, if we think of secular Buddhism, I think its members believe that the practices are good for mental health etc. but they don't go as far to say that life is about escaping suffering and that you'll be reincarnated. I think for Christian Atheism, it might be the same thing where the believer would lead a life where e.g. turning the other cheek is preferable because it might reduce arguments or w/e, but claims about Jesus' divinity are just outright rejected.

I know atheists aren't in the business of defining what a "real" Christian is, but isn't accepting Jesus as god kind of the entire foundation of Christianity and Christian philosophy? Buddhism doesn't have the divinity claims as a pillar of its philosophy, so I'm not sure the comparison can be made that smoothly.

The comparison doesn't hinge on divinity. I'm just saying that attributes A, B and C of religion X, as well as minor attributes D...Z, are the mainstream thought of X. But when religion X is seen through a secular lense, it means that attributes A, B, C (specifically, Jesus' divinity, or in Buddhism how it's believed that we are reincarnated, amongst other things within each religion) are dropped, but D...Z are kept.

Just seems like a hell of a mental contortion. "I'm disregarding everything that this religion claims defines its followers, but still calling myself a follower in order to extract the handful of moral precepts (which I evaluated for myself beforehand) that might be present, despite the fact that these moral precepts are present in other sources. I want to retain the 'Christian' label for reasons unknown."

(January 15, 2015 at 10:55 am)Alex K Wrote: Cherry picking isn't a bad architectural principle per se. We can however discuss whether one should name the resulting edifice after the quarry.

I think the cherry picking is tied to what you said about judging each bit of philosophy by its own merit. I mean, technically speaking, I do value certain philosophies that are integral to these two religions I've mentioned. But I wouldn't go as far to say I'm an Atheist Christian or secular Buddhist. I just so happen to incorporate small bits in my own life purely because the joint mass of all these small portions of philosophy are what I would call "good living", full stop.

(January 15, 2015 at 11:01 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Just seems like a hell of a mental contortion. "I'm disregarding everything that this religion claims defines its followers, but still calling myself a follower in order to extract the handful of moral precepts

It's very tempting to Godwin this topic.

(January 15, 2015 at 11:01 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Just seems like a hell of a mental contortion. "I'm disregarding everything that this religion claims defines its followers, but still calling myself a follower in order to extract the handful of moral precepts (which I evaluated for myself beforehand) that might be present, despite the fact that these moral precepts are present in other sources. I want to retain the 'Christian' label for reasons unknown."

Eh, yeah that's why I think it's practically pointless. But technically we could imagine what "Christian Atheism" would be like.

See my reply to Alex. I think that may describe people who resonate with Christian philosophies here and there.

But again, what exactly is a "Christian philosophy" that wasn't present already in other cultures or sources? Pretty much the only things that are unique to Christianity is its series of god-claims, which "christian atheists" would apparently not accept.

Oooh, I just got a really good visual idea of how I would see this whole business:

Imagine a circle. Now cut it like a pizza into e.g. 8 pieces. Now imagine an inner circle, a smaller pizza inside the bigger one per se. Now each slice represents a religion. What the outer circle represents are the "fundamental" bits of philosophy integral to each religion i.e. Jesus' divinity. The inner circle represents what could easily be the secular bits of philosophy from each religion.

Now, my gut feeling is that your outlook on life would be rather incomplete if you merely grabbed a small pizza slice from the inner circle (e.g. Christian Atheism). It would instead be better to have the *whole* of the inner pizza i.e. your outlook on life shares many things that are found throughout lots of religions, but none of these things are a fundamental thing about said religion.

/atheism

Eh, I'm just sick of religions pissing on things (moral philosophies, technological advances, scientific ideas) and claiming those things are now theirs, and only arose due to the influence of their religion.