Atheists; what do you base your morals on?

[Esquilax]

I'm not so sure Esquilax that "liberal" means the same thing to Americans as it does to Aussies

Oh, I'm aware.

I know we've got a somewhat contradictory liberal political party over here, but I've always just taken the American definition to mean left wing. And since Strodel's not demonstrated that either use of the word is bad...

Well, I don't think he can, anyway.

[Creed of Heresy]

I think Strodel just doesn't like humanism because it's poised to destroy the one thing Christians have claimed to have a monopoly on for so long; care towards other human beings. Christian missions have always been about charity but humanism threatens to make it not an exception for recruiting to a cause but a rule that should always be followed and it scares the shit out of him as it does all other Christians. They can't bear the thought that people can be good without god, especially with a valid reason behind it. They especially don't like that it glorifies human beings, to be expected from those who follow a religion that essentially states that humans are flawed hopelessly and are sin-sucking vile creations that must prostrate to grovel for their perceived shortcomings. All this "human life is valuable and not to be casually discarded, wasted, or harmed" stuff we humanists proclaim must sound anathema to him.

No I think it is fine to have humanist charities but they should do it with their own money just like Christians do, they can get 501C3 like Christians can (and they do). Having a charity is different from using the government to force your ideology on other people through funding certain programs and disadvantaging others.

If you can't see that state funded programs are different from private charities, you are blind.

That said, I think some government programs and subsidies are important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent...enate_Bill

Huh. Whaddya know. A Christian senator trying to use public educational institutions to force his ideology on others...

Your turn. An example of this rampant authoritarian totalitarian nazi fascist commie liberal agenda Stalinist Maoist Marxist Axis of Evil Gay Agenda Secular humanism you claim to exist, please?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The problem with accepting symbolic interpretations of the bible- especially if you're only doing so for some passages while taking literal meaning from others- is that you always run the risk of seeing something that the author never intended. By what right do you assume that your symbolic interpretation is anything other than a product of your own head?

In this particularly case the author has revealed the symbolic meanings to a man, Emanuel Swedenborg, in the Arcana Coelestia. Now I do not merely accept this as pure revelation. I have found it to be internally consistent and insightful, and therefore worthy of serious consideration. That is my judgement. Others differ on that opinion. Secondly, a higher level of interpretation does not necessarily invalidate a literal reading. Both could be true, however the higher level provides additional insight into what is readily apparent on the surface.

Furthermore, it's simply staggering that you can advocate simultaneously for a position in which interpretation is allowed, yet the one you've settled on is the only possible real truth of the universe.

Settled? Hardly, I just consider it the best working theory.

[CleanShavenJesus]

...I don't pretend that those things suddenly have a different meaning because I want them to.

It sounds like you believe that symbolic analysis of a text is completely arbitrary, at least when it comes to Scripture. No doubt for some people that is the case. It takes just as much effort and skill to work the right-side of the brain as it does the left-side. Rational thinking takes diligence and a reasonable understanding of logic. The more complex ideas required even greater effort and skill. Like rationality, symbolic thinking also takes skill and effort. It takes a lot of these to work through the complex symbols and allegories of Scripture.

I know that many atheists on the forums have at one time in their lives been deeply immersed in a specific Christian tradition until some combination of legalism and the absurdity of a literal interpretations, etc. turned them off to the whole enterprise. You've been there and done that. I get it. And I do not disagree that some lampooning of very rigid and shallow approaches can be justified.

But turn-about is fair play. If the literal minded atheist demands that the bible must be taken completely at face value, then he has the same objectionable attitude as a fundamentalist Christian. Point is, it's very easy to be a fundamentalist, you don't have to think passed the surface of the text. It's also very easy to be a literal minded atheist. Neither take the time to consider anything beyond what's right in front of their faces.

Nice post, my point was that when Christians like a certain part of the bible, they like to take it literally. But suddenly when there is a flaw, it's an allegory? This is the case for many passages.

I don't "demand" the Bible be taken at face value. I demand that if you follow the Bible, don't cherrypick. Just because it makes no sense, doesn't mean it suddenly has a second meaning. It just means it makes no sense. The flaws in the Bible are there, whether Christians want to twist the words or not.

I can analyze any passage in the Bible from a literal to allegoral meaning to get it to be something I want to mean. This goes back to, "Who are you to analyze the word of God for what you want?" It makes logical sense to take it as literally as possible. But, hey, that's a different argument.

Of course, even taking the idea of God literally in itself is crazy. So Christians already lose there. Has any of them ever considered any action God ever took to be allegorical? Maybe there is no God, perhaps it's just symbolism for humanity's inability and instability in controlling itself.

Nah, the authors of the Bible weren't good enough for that.

Seriously though, what stops me from saying that Noah's Flood was an allegory? I guess it would help the Christian case, considering God killed millions of people in that flood. Very uncool of Him. The idea in itself is ridiculous. As is the story of Genesis...in fact, as is with any passage involving God.

Maybe "God" is metaphorical. Nothing stops me from saying that. But of course, Christians would be personally offended by me saying that. "What, how could you say something like that?!" How could you say something in the Bible as ridiculous as God giving Moses the Ten Commandments on the mountaintop actually happened, and then said Jonah being swallowed by a whale is allegorical? What's the difference?

There is none, because they'll only take it literally if it makes sense (by religious standards, anyway).

[Angrboda]

I'm not so sure Esquilax that "liberal" means the same thing to Americans as it does to Aussies

Oh, I'm aware.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the definition of liberal may be very different on whatever planet he happens to be on.

[jstrodel]

No I think it is fine to have humanist charities but they should do it with their own money just like Christians do, they can get 501C3 like Christians can (and they do). Having a charity is different from using the government to force your ideology on other people through funding certain programs and disadvantaging others.

If you can't see that state funded programs are different from private charities, you are blind.

That said, I think some government programs and subsidies are important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent...enate_Bill

Huh. Whaddya know. A Christian senator trying to use public educational institutions to force his ideology on others...

Your turn. An example of this rampant authoritarian totalitarian nazi fascist commie liberal agenda Stalinist Maoist Marxist Axis of Evil Gay Agenda Secular humanism you claim to exist, please?

I gave plenty of examples. But a counterpoint to that example, is that 80% of the public is Christian, and they pay for the public education system, which is secular. They are forced to pay, they do not have a choice. If they want to send their kids to a private school, they still have to pay the same amount of taxes.

So you have one person that wants to consider intelligent design in schools and another person that wants to tax people at very high rates to create a secular culture and force people to accept the secular nationalistic ideology of the school system.

For a more extreme example, look at the school system in the 1/5th of the world that is Communist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...when Christians like a certain part of the bible, they like to take it literally. But suddenly when there is a flaw, it's an allegory? ....if you follow the Bible, don't cherrypick. Just because it makes no sense, doesn't mean it suddenly has a second meaning. It just means it makes no sense.

Some more strident and literal minded Christians think that scriptures can only be trusted 100% or not at all. That means they believe that if one minor thing is in error then how can you know if parts critical to the faith are not also in error? I do not find 'biblical inerrency' a very helpful approach to have.

Whether the bible is literally true or not is completely irrelevant to me. I have no problem with considering Genesis as a collection of legends and parables well suited to conveying spiritual wisdom to an ancient story telling culture. Not much different from Greek Mythology, which contained some truth appropriate to that culture and from which we can learn as well.

There was probably a local flood, the same one recorded in Gilgamesh and Chinese folklore. How the ancient Hebrews told the same story is much more interesting to me than the bare facts presented. I think God was able to take existing folklore and fold a spiritual meaning into it.

Then 400 years go by and you get Moses and that starts the written record. I think most of the things that happened starting with Moses happened pretty much the way they are described. But he still rounds some numbers, like 100,000 men went into battle, as opposed to say 983,532. Numbers have symbolic value, so when I see a number like that I don't think of it as a historic fact but a number pointing to some timeless spiritual principle. Generally, I don't have a problem with someone who "made their home in...that fish's abdomen". Miracles are miracles. So, the Gospels happened pretty much as described, miracles and all. As for Revelations, I think that it is so obviously symbolic one would have to be insane to take it literally.

The flaws in the Bible are there, whether Christians want to twist the words or not.

It depends on what you mean by flaws. I understand the point though. Sometimes I think God puts those in there as prompts to remind us not to take the text literally and look for the meaning within the text.

It makes logical sense to take it as literally as possible. But, hey, that's a different argument.

Why? If you wrote a love letter to someone, you would not give them a textbook. You would write a poem or some flowery prose. Now, the bible is not a love letter except in the most abstract way, what with all the smiting and boring geneologies. If a God of infinite Love and Wisdom chose to communicate with hairless apes, I would think he would have to express Himself in analogy and parable because any thing else would be completely beyond our comprehension.

[genkaus]

I gave plenty of examples. But a counterpoint to that example, is that 80% of the public is Christian, and they pay for the public education system, which is secular. They are forced to pay, they do not have a choice. If they want to send their kids to a private school, they still have to pay the same amount of taxes.

So you have one person that wants to consider intelligent design in schools and another person that wants to tax people at very high rates to create a secular culture and force people to accept the secular nationalistic ideology of the school system.

For a more extreme example, look at the school system in the 1/5th of the world that is Communist.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the government provides its services in exchange for taxes.

"According to Black's Law Dictionary, a tax is a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority." It "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name.""

[Baalzebutt]

So you have one person that wants to consider intelligent design in schools and another person that wants to tax people at very high rates to create a secular culture and force people to accept the secular nationalistic ideology of the school system.

And I will say it again, Strudel. You can bitch about this when your church starts paying taxes. Until then, shut the fuck up.

[jstrodel]

"According to Black's Law Dictionary, a tax is a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property owners to support the government [...] a payment exacted by legislative authority." It "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name.""

Why do you use words like "delusion" in this context? Obviously what I am writing is not a delusion. The public school system did not fall out of the sky. It is not delusional to suppose that the state should not necessarily force people to attend its schools. This sort of terminology in political discourse is suggestive of some sort of re-education program.

Do you think that reasonable people can disagree as to the way that their taxes are taken from them? The tax system is very complex.

You seem to want to live in a totalitarian world.

---

So you have one person that wants to consider intelligent design in schools and another person that wants to tax people at very high rates to create a secular culture and force people to accept the secular nationalistic ideology of the school system.

And I will say it again, Strudel. You can bitch about this when your church starts paying taxes. Until then, shut the fuck up.

What is your argument for that position? That is not self evident to me.