redwhine Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Let's take a look at that OP again... Q. Is there any mileage in looking for the common ground in the evolving values of aetheists and the evolving values of non-fundamentalist religions, or is it the case that logic and reason will always be incompatible with faith? Surely, we must consider what is and what is not common ground before we can attempt to answer that question. Also, you need to define what you mean by 'non-fundamentalist religions'. It sounds like an oxymoron to me, but I'm open to persuasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 PS not "What is atheism?", but "What is Atheism 2.0?". You did watch the video didn't you? It's rather crucial to the discussion. Yes. I saw it before you linked to it on here. Did you watch the one I posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'm open to persuasion. OK You posted a counter video. Is there any prospect of exploring common ground, or are you saying there is none? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 OK You posted a counter video. Is there any prospect of exploring common ground, or are you saying there is none? Don't fall for it Redwhine !! He just wants you to answer his questions then he says it's over, next part please, I'm not responding to your questions relevant to my points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Either you let me admit defeat (I've acepted that the proposition has been rejected) or we agree to explore the common ground of morals and values. I'm not interested in fighting over Science vs religion, reason vs faith. I joked in the OP about this being a Science AND Religion thread - as put forward in Jonathan Sachs book recommended by borderline. From a review of "The Great Partnership" - "Jonathan Sacks shows how the predominance of science-oriented thinking is embedded deeply even in our religious understanding, and calls on us to recognise the centrality of relationship to true religion, and thus to see how this core value of relationship is essential if we are to avoid the natural tendency for science to rule our lives rather than fulfilling its promise to set us free". http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Partnership-Jonathan-Sacks/dp/0340995246 Do you believe in the core value of relationship? Would you be interested in reading the book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Either you let me admit defeat (I've acepted the proposition has been rejected) or we agree to explore the common ground of morals and values. I'm not interested in fighting over Science vs religion, reason vs faith. I joked in the OP about this being a Science AND Religion - as put forward in Jonathan Sachs book recommended by borderline. From a review of "The Great Partnership" - Jonathan Sacks shows how the predominance of science-oriented thinking is embedded deeply even in our religious understanding, and calls on us to recognise the centrality of relationship to true religion, and thus to see how this core value of relationship is essential if we are to avoid the natural tendency for science to rule our lives rather than fulfilling its promise to set us free. Do you believe in the core value of relationship? Would you be interested in reading the book? You're really not reading my posts properly. It's a discussion, I'm not seeking some victory. I'm wanting to discuss. I'm not talking about some proposition either, which I haven't rejected by the way. I haven't said anything about science either, I don't know where you keep getting this from. I'm talking about what we can learn from religion, what YOU think we can learn from religion. Specifically, moral guidance, the point which you raised. Once again, you asked me about the source for my morals, giving the 10 commandments as an example from a religious standpoint. I gave you my answer. I will rephrase what I asked you so you cannot possibly mistake it for anger, bitterness or wanting to get bogged down debating the 10 commandments. I'm not interested in discussing what they are. I'm asking you how you think a rational thinking person should learn from the bible as it is telling us about the 10 commandments, with Moses immediately breaking one of them the moment he reveals them to his people. Your whole point with this thread is atheists learning from religion, using the example YOU gave, I'm asking you to explain how. I've not rejected any propositions, I'm not getting angry, I'm not trying to score a victory over you. I'm trying to discuss and discover what and how we should learn from religion. If you don't want to continue, then I ask the same question about your example (10 commandments) to everyone else. EDIT: I hope the colours and bold help ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'm talking about what we can learn from religion, what YOU think we can learn from religion. Specifically, moral guidance, the point which you raised. When Alain de Botton talks about learning from religion, he's not talking about individual lessons to be learned. He's talking about methods. He's talking about community, song and art and festivals. And I was referring to the 10 commandments simply as a checklist. It's a good idea to have checklists. I'm not sure where the moral checklists are that we could refer errant teenagers to, other than those from religion. It's not really good enough for me to say to to the lad I'm mentoring "oh just work it out for yourself" ... Science has undermined the foundations of religion in that many of the core beliefs are inconsistent with observable and deduced facts. But religion hasn't gone away. Why? It's not just because scientific method and knowledge hasn't been imparted to the faithful yet. There's still something positive there that people want to connect with. That may be notions of a God creator and after life, but it's also about human connections and community. Now we know religions aren't perfect, and nobody likes dogma, but people are still searching for moral guidance. Should this be taught in schools and then forgotten? Or are there other ways in which we can continue to reconnect with our shared values? Is there any value to communities in having weekly meetings and listening to a prepared talk from a respected member of the community, and reaffirming a commitment to care for each other? We could learn from religions (and any organisation) that has experience in attempting to put values into practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 When Alain de Botton talks about learning from religion, he's not talking about individual lessons to be learned. He's talking about methods. He's talking about community, song and art and festivals. Science has undermined the foundations of religion in that many of the core beliefs are inconsistent with observable and deduced facts. But religion hasn't gone away. Why? It's not just because scientific method and knowledge hasn't been imparted to the faithful yet. There's still something positive there that people want to connect with. That may be notions of a God creator and after life, but it's also about human connections and community. Now we know religions aren't perfect, and nobody likes dogma, but people are still searching for moral guidance. Should this be taught in schools and then forgotten? Or are there other ways in which we can continue to reconnect with our shared values? Is there any value to communities in having weekly meetings and listening to a prepared talk from a respected member of the community, and reaffirming a commitment to care for each other? We could learn from religions (and any organisation) that has experience in attempting to put values into practice. You're supposed to use quotation marks when using someone else's speech. When Alain de Botton talks about learning from religion, he's not talking about individual lessons to be learned. He's talking about methods. BINGO! That's exactly what I'm talking about! The example you gave was the 10 commandments, I'm asking how we should learn from HOW religion uses this to teach morals, the METHOD. The bible tells us about Moses delivering the 10 commandments, then tells of him immediately breaking them himself. Do you really not care to discuss this method of teaching by religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairDooz Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 The bible tells us about Moses delivering the 10 commandments, then tells of him immediately breaking them himself. Do you really not care to discuss this method of teaching by religion? ... errr no! Then why did I refer to the ten commandment at all? It was an example for you to refer to so that you could let me know what your equivalent might be. The point is that it IS a checklist to refer to. BTW. I actually prefer the Indian Ten Commandments. http://www.allposters.com.au/-sp/The-Ten-Indian-Commandments-posters_i357909_.htm How churches have managed to survive at all in the 21st century is a miracle(?) There are positives and negatives in the methods of teaching religion. If it was all negative, they wouldn't survive. Can we pick out the positives and learn from them? Shared experience as a community for example, as previously mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 You forget that anything done in the name of a God is axiomatically ungood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.