• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Why do atheists only seem to go after the Judeao-Christian religion?

Gnostic Bishop said:
LOL.

Do not take that attitude and stand on the highway my friend.

I think you will find a lot of actual cars that exist.

If you need a lot of proof, step in front of one. You will only have to do it once man cub.

Ransom itch ---- see if you can get the connection for or in this link.


Richard. Instead of doing the highway thing, just ----------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ILPl5FQaM

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

My proof will be anecdotal. Give me objective proof that cars exist. ;)
 
ebola? said:
Lengthy post on ethics (and its objectivity or lack thereof):



While as an 'ex-sociologist' I have to disagree vehemently, I think that you express the following grain of truth: one of the implicit preconditions for engagement in ethical/moral reasoning and practice is the ability of 'ethical agents' to somehow (at least in some set of cases) validly impose behavioral prescriptions on others that are somehow "unethical" to defy. Insofar as this condition is absent, we'd just have statements of mutual aesthetic tastes, personal desires for how others should act, etc., but without any underlying structure of social compulsion (in turn also lacking the the interplay of psychological factors underlying the experience of ethical compulsion).

Now, it seems to me that for any given social context, most participants are likely to share a certain set of axioms functioning as logical preconditions (even if implicit) for interactions that are intelligible, useful and/or beneficial to participants, and sufficiently well coordinated. From these practices emerge ethical obligations, functioning as semantically representative and behaviorally effective tools coordinating, directing, but in particular constraining the interactions and entailed roles' we undertake, to allow for their stable, fruitful reproduction. So here, we have an at least somewhat functional system of ethics justified in terms other than divine might, and not universally applicable yet existent on a level not subsumed by mere subjective mental life.*

Now, I don't consider this picture remotely adequate. It presents no ready, remotely general solutions to the questions of what constitutes a 'valid' community capable of producing such ethics, nor does it even fully justify the good that such ethics promote. Sure, we can say that fulfilling mutually held individual interests, establishing a stable, productive order, etc. are good, but by what justification? And on what grounds can we justify application of coercion in the name of ethically grounded ends? Hell, it seems to me that even relatively adequate ethical systems require that rewards, punishments, etc. be imposed from without, inadequately justified by the ethical structure they supposedly promote.** But I consider it most damning that contemporary social systems tend to involve partial, overlapping intersections of partially bounded social subsystems, subject to some degree of fragmentation. I see no ready criteria for sorting out which group's ethical standards apply to whom (and why) (or even when you have a legitimate social subsystem, rather than some 'leader' or oligarchy issuing commands and/or administering physical force to 'dupes').
...
I'm actually skeptical that even the introduction of a god can solve these issues, as this god would need to have presided over the creation of these curious social creatures who are prone to making varied ethical claims--return to the refrain, "'Cause god said so," doesn't answer any of my questions above.

ebola

*In a literal sense, these types of ethics are "objective" in being experienced as imposed compulsion (be it literally imposed by others or by dynamics of guilt, shame, and duty in the mind), but not in terms of universality, generality, or a-temporality; humans have not produced the variety of ethical systems before us ex nihilo, ethics only taking on meaning in relation to some sort of social context.
**As a quasi-anarchist who disbelieves in the validity of retribution in general, I'll do poorly selecting and justifying coercion and punishment. :P
Click to expand...

I believe that we are speaking in two different terms of objectivity and subjectivity, or I have misunderstood your post. It very well may be the latter. Haha
 
Joeof1 said:
How does that change what I said?

P.S. Greece is actually the first Western Power in history ;-)
Click to expand...

The Ancient Greek concept of morality, and the modern concept of morality, are two entirely different concepts. I was speaking in terms of the latter.
 
RichardMooner said:
The Ancient Greek concept of morality, and the modern concept of morality, are two entirely different concepts. I was speaking in terms of the latter.
Click to expand...

Except they aren't because the word morality did not exist in any Germanic dialect prior to the Enlightenment where many Greek documents were translated for general readership. The thing that you think of as Morality, is merely a transliteration of the Greek concept.
 
Joeof1 said:
Except they aren't because the word morality did not exist in any Germanic dialect prior to the Enlightenment where many Greek documents were translated for general readership. The thing that you think of as Morality, is merely a transliteration of the Greek concept.
Click to expand...

Morality, as I was using it, was the colloquial concept of morality. The definition of morality is contextual.
 
[8] And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

Chances are this wouldn't have happened in the winter.

To begin, we have to take a minute to understand the way that ancient Jews lived and raised sheep in order to understand when Jesus was born. Does that sound crazy? Well, hang with me here for a minute. It was the Jewish custom for shepherds to send out their sheep into the fields in the early spring at about the time of the Passover. They did not bring these sheep home until the first rains started in early to mid fall. During this time, when the flocks of sheep were out in the open fields, shepherds would stay with the sheep to insure their safety. They would stay with the sheep both day and night. This would continue until the shepherds drove their sheep back in from these fields early in the month of “Marh-esvan” (a period of time we would now locate some time in October). In essence, shepherds stayed in the open fields with their sheep for the entire summer.

This cultural tradition, documented in many non-Biblical records and accounts of the time, is also well documented in the Jewish scriptures. The Book of Ezra documents the fact that the winter rainy season was a time when the Jewish people knew better than to leave themselves out in the rain:
Click to expand...

This is why Jesus' birth is celebrated when it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice said:
[8] And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

Chances are this wouldn't have happened in the winter.



This is why Jesus' birth is celebrated when it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule
Click to expand...

This "tradition" doesn't make a bit of sense. The climate of the southern West Bank does not allow for the dietary needs of sheep to be fulfilled during the summer months, however, the late winter and early spring months do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top