Jump to content

What is Aetheism 2.0?


Recommended Posts

... 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.

 

If you don't wish to discuss methods of teaching from religion, then waht do you want to discuss? So far you've not really given any examples.

 

Of COURSE we can pick out positives, you can do that with anything. The thing is there's nothing I can think of that religion can teach us that we don't already have. Can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is there's nothing I can think of that religion can teach us that we don't already have. Can you?

 

Shared experience as a community for example, as previously mentioned.

 

eg weekly congregations with a talk from a respected member of the community. (as previously mentioned)

 

Have a good weekend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eg weekly congregations with a talk from a respected member of the community. (as previously mentioned)

 

Have a good weekend

 

Ah you mean like village community meetings, tea mornings etc, the ones that are independant of religion?

 

I will have a great weekend thankyou!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... 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

 

And the point I keep making is that it's a lot better if people have their own checklist rather than expecting somebody else to put it in place from an external source. That's a lazy attitude.

But for those who wish for a secular 10 commandments to give them guidance here's Christopher Hitchen's advice. I particularly like commandment number 8! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK You posted a counter video. Is there any prospect of exploring common ground, or are you saying there is none?

Now you're moving the goalposts. From the OP, your question was, "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?"

 

How can we discuss whether there is any mileage or not without comparing common ground with differences?

 

Now all you want to do is look at is the common ground, and ignore the differences, prohibiting mention of them. Make your mind up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're moving the goalposts. From the OP, your question was, "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?"

 

How can we discuss whether there is any mileage or not without comparing common ground with differences?

 

Now all you want to do is look at is the common ground, and ignore the differences, prohibiting mention of them. Make your mind up.

 

Told you! :hihi:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some ways I kinda hoped the thread I started would just disappear - the proposal for atheists to get over their distaste for faith when they consider reason to be superior has been a bit of a disaster here on SF (as elsewhere).

 

How can we discuss whether there is any mileage or not without comparing common ground with differences?

 

The proposal was to begin by acknowledging obvious differences, to lay down our intellectual weapons and re-engage as human beings. The proposal was not to explore differences but to test the willingness to explore common ground (not to actually engage in that discussion now), but merely to ask, can we adopt a new approach? - or atheism 2.0 as Alain de Botton called it (which in itself got heckles up - "cringeworthy" as one poster put it).

 

If you want to know what the obvious differences are that I'm referring to, you only need to watch the video (at the exact point I've previously linked to).

 

So why am I resurrecting this thread when it feels that when others have attempted to resurrect it, they've done it only to give the proposal another mauling.

 

Well, it's because of the editorial in today's Observer - "Let's avoid a clash of faith and reason" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/observer-editorial-religion-christianity-dawkins?newsfeed=true

 

In my opinion, it's well worth reading in full, but let me give you a taste by quoting the last paragraph. (Forgive me for breaking it up for my own benefit)

 

But the flaws and occasional absurdities of Christianity

as it is practised on these shores

do not warrant a full-blown culture war

of the kind that has coarsened public life in the United States,

and led to women being arrested for wearing the veil in France.

 

Religious faith, whether Christian, Muslim, Sikh or Hindu,

cannot be wished away from public life

just because life would be more "rational" without it.

 

A plural, liberal society is one in which openness to difference

is a principle that is also practised.

 

That means disagreeing, at times strongly,

but always carrying on the conversation.

 

Of Dawkins's 54% of self-declared Christian,

58% told pollsters that being Christian meant

"trying to be a good person".

 

Isn't that worth exploring,

whether or not one believes in the Resurrection?

 

It's a very simple proposition.

 

"Let's avoid a clash of reason and faith"

 

Let's avoid "secular totalitarianism" or "militant secualrisation".

 

"After the dreadful Soham murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in 2002, church services were packed as locals attempted to come to terms with such inexplicable horror. Continuity, tradition and a sense of orientation, however vague, towards matters of ultimate significance are clearly not 'irrelevant' to many people in Britain today." - again from the Observer editorial - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/observer-editorial-religion-christianity-dawkins?newsfeed=true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of Dawkins's 54% of self-declared Christian,

58% told pollsters that being Christian meant

"trying to be a good person".

 

Isn't that worth exploring,

whether or not one believes in the Resurrection?

 

It's a very simple proposition.

 

 

Not knowing what Christianity is, that's hardly "learning from religion" is it?

 

It's more like how a lot of people ALREADY are, without religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.