^^ As I've heard the argument before, it means that everyone good who calls himself or herself an atheist is self-deluded and unknowingly follows God. It's still offensive, but it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.
Edit: Maybe we should deal with this over PMs. It'll almost certainly be thumped if we continue it further in this thread.
edited 27th Feb '12 11:42:40 AM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulEh. "God" is what I call the principle of goodness.
I think that it has personhood, while atheists generally do not; but for what's worth, I am pretty sure that my own understanding of God is deeply flawed, quite possibly more so than that of many atheists (I am pretty sure I am in the right about personhood, but there is much else to be possibly wrong about).
In any case, I do not really see how this is patronizing. In my mind, it's not different from how a Hindu could go "Christians have an imperfect understanding of Brahman, and they call it "God", and believe that He was also a Jewish carpenter" or a Muslim could go "Christians believe in Allah, but they have some pretty freaky ideas about Him" or so on.
I am sorry if this causes offense; but still, I believe it to be true.
edited 27th Feb '12 11:44:15 AM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
the thing is, that ususally does offend people. Its why Christianity as a religion doesnt syncretize much. They prefer outright swaying people from other religious thoughts to their own and outright refuse to incorporate. So when say, Buddhism ascribes Jesus to being a Bodhisattva, a lot of christians find it amazingly offensive.
Mostly because it presupposes that Jesus wasnt truly the son of god, just a wise man leading people to Nirvana, and therefore all christians are deluded buddhism deniers.
edited 27th Feb '12 11:47:05 AM by Midgetsnowman
...But those are all patronizing too!
It really wouldn't bother you at all if I told you you can't be a moral person without believing in the Brahmin, and when you respond "but I am a moral person and I don't believe in Brahmin" I say "no, you really do, you just don't know it"?
It's a bit delusionally supportive of your own religion (ignoring the reality that people REALLY CAN BE atheists), but mostly it's TERRIBLY patronizing, even more than just plain "you can't be moral without believing in God", because you're denying the beliefs of everyone who disagrees with you.
EDIT: ALSO, I should say I don't believe in "goodness" as a Platonic form, either. "Good" is an entirely human constructed category we use to group together a lot of things that are only similar in their effects on human beings.
edited 27th Feb '12 11:48:45 AM by BlackHumor
@Carc: Without going into excessive detail, there are atheistic moral systems that roughly equate to what you're talking about, and there are others that don't. Mine can't be made analogous to Judeo-Christianity in anything more than the loosest of terms, although it might have something in common with a few animistic religions. (Similarly, those animistic religions are also incomparable to what you're talking about.)
I don't want to derail this too much, and I don't think I can reasonably speak on behalf of people who follow systems not akin to mine. I just want to make the point that not everyone's system is akin to yours.
edited 27th Feb '12 11:46:35 AM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulI dunno if this counts as a derail — after all, the topic is the various different ways in which people interpret the Bible, and this is about how I understand the "faith/works" issue...
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.You do understand, I hope, that when you say, "God", most people assume you are talking about some sort of a powerful being with thoughts and desires that has some sort of abiliy to impact the world, rather than an abstract principle. The idea of "God" as a "principle of goodness" is very different from what most people think when they hear the word "God". Using your own personal definition in lieu of the generally-understood definition doesn't help communication at all. Clarity is essential to good communication.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.edited 27th Feb '12 11:53:05 AM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.^ There you go again. Faith is part of the Bible, and part of the Biblical system. It's not part of everyone's systems. (I personally have no faith, as I have no loyalty and no justice. I don't consider them important compared to other considerations.)
Edit: And to clarify, yes, that's extremely important. I'm in an ethics class right now, and I have very different conclusions about what's right and what's wrong than the people who follow different systems. (In particular, my lack of loyalty often leads me to different conclusions than others.)
edited 27th Feb '12 11:57:23 AM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulPerhaps you would not describe it in terms of faith; but that's how I describe it.
Yeah, I am using the concepts which come with my understanding of the world in order to talk about people who may disagree with it. I am sorry if this sounds patronizing; but if you accept that from my point of view, these concepts are the right ones, you can see that this is inevitable.
I mean, let's turn the tables. Should you be expected to interpret and describe my behaviour in terms of a Judeo-Christian metaphysics which you consider flawed and to which you do not subscribe?
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Anyway, on an attempt to rerail, we were talking about Faith and Works. My question from earlier was, Faith and/or Works are important for what purpose? If it's for "salvation", then what is it that people need to be "saved" from?
EDIT:
Understanding a person's worldview can give huge insight into understanding their motivations and actions. What a person believes to be true is often more important to that person than what may actually be true.
edited 27th Feb '12 12:04:12 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.Actually, yes. I talk about people's attempts to do good according to whatever system they're trying to do good by.
Edit: Should probably switch this to something on-topic, but I don't actually have anything to say about the current topic yet. I'll bow out for the moment.
edited 27th Feb '12 12:04:31 PM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulUm...they did incorporate a ton of religious and moral thoughts. From imperial Rome to win quick converts. That's half the problem both Christians and non-Christians are dealing with today.
edited 27th Feb '12 12:11:14 PM by Pykrete
![]()
Faith is something quite different from belief. I am not saying that if you do good, you have an idea of God floating around in your subconscious; I am saying that the desire to do good is a form of Faith in God. Imperfect, sure, but whose isn't?
edited 27th Feb '12 12:11:54 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.Atheists do good for a whole host of reasons, none of which have anything to do with God. They may care about people they help, or have a desire to make things better all around, or they may do good for selfish reasons, like praise and recognition. The simplest way to find out why an atheist does something is to ask him.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.I argued this further in a PM to Carc, but the simple version is that he seems to be using metaphysics to justify a system of ethics, while I, for one, consider metaphysics independent from ethics. (For instance, the fact that the metaphysics of Star Wars balances heavily towards Lucas's ethical system doesn't prevent that system from being self-contradictory and ultimately silly, as demonstrated by how Night Watch uses a similar metaphysical system while promoting a very different ethical system.)
edited 27th Feb '12 12:26:18 PM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulAlright, we're going in circles, and I'd at least like to turn it into a bit of a Q before a mod facedesks the thread into oblivion.
So atheists are offended when a religious person posits that they might be closer to God than they think. I understand why. Really. Did it ever occur to you that when you guys tell us "Your conscience doesn't come from God, you're just a good person", it feels pretty much the same way?
Maybe we need to stop bickering about the destination long enough to keep our eyes on the road, you know?
@Pykrete: I guess I can buy the idea that while the religious statement is like insulting the atheist, the atheistic statement is like insulting the religious person's father.
Edit: That said, there comes the question of "Which road?"
edited 27th Feb '12 12:29:03 PM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful^ I'm not sure I agree with you. Quite frequently in issues of race and gender, we find that the statements people make without intending any offense are the ones that most obviously reveal their inaccurate preconceptions. (I'm not exactly offended at what Carc said, but I do think it shows how little he understands how I think, and probably how lots of other people here think as well.)
Edit: Not that I mean to imply that anyone else here thinks exactly like me. The point I'm trying to make is simply one of variation.
Edit to the edit: I do hope this thread doesn't get locked. I think it's going somewhere much more interesting than our religion threads normally go.
edited 27th Feb '12 12:39:15 PM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

You're implying, if not outright stating, that no atheist can ever do good works. Not only is that provably false, but it's downright insulting.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.