-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
Something smells … different.
After that last quote in the article I’m really beginning to think that Obama is just not a believer, that he feigns belief for political purposes.
I’m not knocking it. At this point, getting inside and working the system may be the only way that humanists/atheists will ever get people to realize that they don’t need an FSM.
Nice. Too bad the Republicans can’t muster the character to recognize this, but persist in the false and ahistorical “Christian country” narrative.
He says some good things, but then he pops off with “For it is only through common struggle and common effort, as brothers and sisters, that we fulfill our highest purpose as beloved children of God.”
It’s like he almost gets it. He knows what he’s supposed to do, but not why. Besides, that is, looking like he’s doing something useful.
He also says, “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.” Yes Mr. Obama, but there are plenty of religious who will determine “innocence” and act accordingly.
There’s no reason to justify funding faith-based aid associations. Just regulate the hell out of them while doing it.
Well, this will make me feel better about his saddling my kid’s generation with trillions of dollars of debt.
FWIW, Dubya made a few of these passing references, too.
“Well, this will make me feel better about his saddling my kid’s generation with trillions of dollars of debt.”
Neither party is an angel on that score. At least with the Democrats, they make no bones that they favor spending. The thing about the Republicans that I can’t stand is that they’re hypocrits. When they’re out of power and can’t do anything, they’re all talk about being fiscally responsible and cutting spending, but when they have power, they spend worse then the Democrats.
“FWIW, Dubya made a few of these passing references, too.”
Good for him, too. Too bad too many in the party seems to spout variations of Romney’s “freedom requires religion” nonsense.
Neither party is an angel on that score.
Obviously not, just don’t expect me to swoon over a few crumbs that the other guy was dishing out, too.
Good for him, too. Too bad too many in the party seems to spout variations of Romney’s “freedom requires religion” nonsense.
Well, since we’re playing the tu quoque game, Obama’s party barred secularists from their interfaith ho-down at their national convention.
After that last quote in the article I’m really beginning to think that Obama is just not a believer, that he feigns belief for political purposes.
And what exactly is the political creed of the church where he spent twenty years feigning his Christianity?
FWIW, Dubya made a few of these passing references, too.
yes. we’ve turned a corner in some ways. remember ramesh ponnuru, a roman catholic, being peeved that romney left nonbelievers out of his pluralism speech?
I have no idea what Obama’s real religious beliefs are. With the exceptions of Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, I have no idea of what the real religious beliefs (if any) of his 43 predecessors were. I’ve always assumed that all agnostic and atheist politicians have the sense to keep their mouths shut about their lack of faith, since a majority of their constituents seem to think that being a practicing Christian or Jew is an essential requirement for public service.
I once read a terribly earnest statement by one of John F. Kennedy’s minions–I think it was Kenneth O’Donnell (he who claimed never to have heard of Judith Campbell Exner)–that the last thing he and JFK did each night was kneel by JFK’s bedside in tandem and say their prayers. I laughed out loud at the mental image; it certainly raised a number of amusing questions. Was whatever woman who happened to be occupying Jack’s bed that night asked to leave before the prayer session started? Or did she enter the bedroom only after the devotions had been concluded and the minion had departed?
Anyway, as an agnostic/atheist who was raised in a non-religious household, I can’t get excited about being “included” or “acknowledged” in any politician’s speech.
Are you guys so desperate for some “kind words” from the President that you start drooling whenever you hear that sappy Golden Rule rhetoric?
I mean, if you want to be secularized Christians, be secularized Christians. Be proud of what you are. Don’t try to smuggle your Christian morality in through the back door with all this Golden Rule bullshit.
the golden rule isn’t christian morality, it’s human morality. if you think that that’s bullshit, you’re a moron.
It’s human morality only when negatively phrased, as in “Do NOT do unto others as you would NOT have them do unto you.” Christ’s positive formulation is positively inhuman, as only a divine being could fulfill it (something Christ himself failed at, as any Jerusalem moneychanger at the time could attest).
If *I* were a a believer, and *I* were corrupting the House of God by making it into a marketplace, I hope the Messiah would drive me out.
That’s the problem with the Golden Rule. You can always rationalize what you want to do by deluding yourself that it’s what your enemy *would* want, if they were as noble / enlightened / pious as you are.
If you guys can’t see how Christian your supposedly reason-based morality is, you’re all a bunch of morons. Obviously the golden rule, abstractly stated, isn’t Christian. Any moron can see that. My point, to spell it out, is that what you secularized Christians think of as the golden rule is in essence the Christian specification of the golden rule. It’s not the Jewish one attributed to Rabbi Hillel (did he include Samaritans? Amalek?), it’s not the Aztec golden rule, it’s not the pagan Roman golden rule, etc. Your golden rule probably forbids infanticide, genocide, and human sacrifice, while it might permit you to eat steak. Other golden rules differ. Lots of you Christian-atheists are more deluded than believing Christians.
If you’re trying to say we live in a Christian culture, or at least one shaped by Christianity, that’s fine. Just recognize that that’s not the “Golden Rule” as popularly understood.
I’m not saying you live in a Christian culture, I’m saying you yourself are a secularized Christian. Secularized, meaning that you’ve just translated a specifically Christian theology and morality into a different language, keeping the original form and substance. It’s actually pretty amusing how you guys can’t even grasp such a concept, whether or not you agree with it. Most of your precious reasoning, and many of the categories by which you understand the world, are Christian. Your own thought is just about as much “shaped by Christianity” as that of your average Pentecostal snake-handler. It’s funny to watch all you “freethinkers” squirm when faced with the truth.
@Ploni Almoni
A godless freethinker myself, I am by no means squirming at your riddles; but I am mildly curious enough to wish to understand what you are trying to convey. Are you suggesting that “others” might include cows elsewhere, and we are failing to appreciate the perspective of the Hindus? If so, how does that failure translate into being “Christian-atheists?”
I cannot help that my own moral code, which I carefully worked out for myself to be consonant with my own nature, happens to be harmonious with much (but by no means all) of Christian morality; but that sure doesn’t make me a Christian. I find the notion of praying to or worshiping an invisible friend in the sky ridiculous, and I find Christian’s need to proselytize and infect other minds with their altruistic dogma downright evil. I would regard the rambling acid trip recounted in Revelations amusing, were it not for the fact that so many Christians actually believe it to be prophesy and are somehow looking forward to the world ending Apocalypse. That is simply pathological, and to accuse me of being a Christian in disguise would be almost offensive.
I regard the Christian formulation of the Golden Rule as naive. I am too long in the tooth to still think that doing someone a kindness will necessarily elicit a kindness in return. I have no difficulty accepting the negative formulation one finds in the East; for I have noticed that if I avoid harming others, they are less likely to find cause to harm me. That is pretty basic civilization 101, or as David said, “human morality.” I am interested in grokking your perspective, but you are going to have to be a lot less cryptic (and caustic) if you wish to be understood. ◄Dave►
Ploni Almoni
I’m saying you yourself are a secularized Christian. Secularized, meaning that you’ve just translated a specifically Christian theology and morality into a different language, keeping the original form and substance.
Yes, but Christianity IS the basis for secularism, so what?
I really don’t think the Golden Rule plays any part in my thinking.
But in so far as one is constantly negotiating quid pro quo’s with other Darwinian agents – as part of surviving in human society – I guess something like it could be emergent in practice.
I think of myself as utterly selfish. I am not actually trying to benefit other people. If it happens, it’s definitely “invisible hand” stuff.
Getting on with others, who are Darwinian agents in their own right, requires a certain “games theory” sophistication. If I do X he will do Y then I will do Z…. It’s a bit like chess, you think five moves ahead.
I think of my rationality as following in the Aristotlean tradition. I feel I owe far more to Athens, intellectually, than to Jerusalem. I can definitely identify far more easily with classical paganism than with Abrahamic religion. Mostly Abrahamic religions strike me as obsessive and bizarre – Very alien – Very foreign.
My favorite classical philosophy is secular Taoism. I love the Tao Te Ching.
@Daniel Dare
The truly secular “Golden Rule” is the iterated prisoner’s dilemma.
I guess the obsessive and the bizarre of Abrahamic religions comes from the institutionalisation of guilt.
@Kevembuangga,
Yes. Intellectually I know you are right about the IPD.
It’s not just the guilt. It’s the sheer bloody authoritarianism.
The only sympathetic character in the whole Bible for me is Satan.
At least the Serpent tempted us with knowledge and rebellion. And we were freed from the sterility of Eden to live our lives through our own productive work – What’s not to like? – It is the birth of rational Man.
Consequently I would always choose the Apple rather than the Cross.
@Daniel Dare
It’s the sheer bloody authoritarianism.
This is the essence of ALL religions, even when concealed like in Buddhism or Taoism.
BTW, relevant posts at The Edge: “Does the empirical nature of science contradict the revelatory nature of faith?”
I must give credit. I am not the first person to point out the essentially Promethian nature of the Serpent myth.
I first read it in a science fiction story by Harlan Ellison called “The Deathbird”.
@◄Dave►
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I meant about the cows. The golden rule is meaningless until you specify who those “others” are that you’re doing unto, and which “others” take precedence over which other “others” in which particular situations. As I understand it, some religions include animals in their “do unto others.” Christianity doesn’t. Some religions might include slaves; other religions don’t. Some religions might put more importance on the golden rule within the clan; others might emphasize the golden rule within the church. Compare a few religions, and you’ll see an enormous variation in the scope and gradations of their golden rules, no matter how similarly they’re stated.
When humanists and atheists talk about an abstract “golden rule,” or about some vague “morality” in general, they’re almost always talking about the Christian version, maybe with some minor adjustments here and there. Specifically, when an atheist says that people can be moral without God or religion, just by natural reason alone (that seems to be a theme of this blog), it’s basically the Christian morality that he’s implicitly talking about. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
But what difference does it make? I don’t have to be a firm believer in God’s existence to accept that there’s a good deal to be said in favor of Judeo-Christian morality insofar as it specifically proscribes some forms of barbarous or unethical behavior, i.e., murdering, stealing, raping, bearing false witness, etc. Of course a lot of non-Christian belief systems promote the same ethic. The Greeks and Romans certainly promoted ethical behavior.
Jefferson was a Deist. Since Franklin was also, one can only assume our Founding Fathers has more common sense than our current Representatives, including the Chief Executive.
Ploni Almoni
Specifically, when an atheist says that people can be moral without God or religion, just by natural reason alone (that seems to be a theme of this blog), it’s basically the Christian morality that he’s implicitly talking about. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
Yes, true, so?
You keep repeating that but it is not clear at all what your point is.