A temple for atheists.. What do ya think?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/26/alain-de-botton-te mple-atheism

Comments

Comments

• A temple (from the Latin word templum) is a structure reserved for religious or spiritual activities, such as prayer and sacrifice, or analogous rites.
  
  -From Wikipedia
  
  Yes 'temple' don't seem like the right word.

  • Report
  

  by aldonoir on January 30th, 2012

• The whole idea of dedicating it to atheism seems a bit daft to me.

  • Report
  

  by Prunesquallor on January 30th, 2012

Comments

• The majority of atheists I know are against the idea.
  
  Still surprised?

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on January 31st, 2012

• Well, every cult has small beginnings. It takes a while for the sheep to gather.

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on January 31st, 2012

• The issue with doing that with atheism is that atheism doesn't define the atheist the way theism defines the theist.
  There is no moral code that congregated theism provides just doesn't work for atheism.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on January 31st, 2012

• True. I'm impressed you admit that atheism is amoral. Many atheists are offended when someone suggests that atheism is amoral and therefore promotes immorality.

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on January 31st, 2012

• Atheism has no morality, though theism doesn't have the extent they think it does. People assign their own morals to their Gods in the same way atheists form theirs. Though there is far more dictation than to an atheist, but thats in the same way as the law.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on January 31st, 2012

• Actually, people following a religion don't get to assign their own morals to their God. It's already written by the time they get there. For instance, if someone follows Christianity, they can't re-write the 10 Commandments or the "11th Commandment" of Jesus for that matter.
  
  If atheism's only moral code is the law, if all of us were atheists we'd be in serious danger of setting ourselves up for a totalitarian police state. Who will challenge unjust and oppressive laws when the law is your only moral reference?

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on January 31st, 2012

• Have you read the article? I'm glad to see some atheists are finally seeing how foolish, destructive and divisive Richard Dawkins is.
  
  Here's a quote from the article I liked.
  
  "Building a monument acknowledges that we are more than dust. Whether we come at that through secular means or a religious narrative, it is the same game.
  
  "This is a more constructive atheism than Dawkins, who is about the destruction of ideas rather than contributing new ones."

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on January 31st, 2012

• Its sentimental babble to justify a pointless building bro. Atheists don't get all their morality from law. Morality as a whole is learnt by growing up and through conditioning in a social environment. Carrot and stick, Pavlov's dogs etc.
  People interpret religion to suit these morals, the 10 commandments aren't the only rules. Homosexuality is interesting one and the rebuttal "how come your God hates everything you hate" explains the point well.
  Dawkins has his personality but that doesn't mean its atheism's heralding. This guy though does seem to think so by calling him out and seems to want to be one himself.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on January 31st, 2012

• Religion has always been the vehicle for morality in that social environment. Take it away and where will people learn morals from? Soap operas?

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on January 31st, 2012

• From each other, through natural interaction.
  Growing up no one is running at you with a gun, so its not normal behaviour. You don't learn it so you don't do it. When it happens it harms people and so gets socially shunned.
  Thats where morality comes from.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on January 31st, 2012

• Sounds a bit Utopian to me. In real life everyone's not automatically moral. Nor will everyone learn morals by themselves. They need to be taught, educated. Education is an important part of development. Even animals teach their young. An uneducated person remains an ignoramus.
  
  In real life, people do, in fact, run at each other with guns and do all kinds of wrongs. They cheat, they lie, they form gangs and sell drugs, rob grocery stores, commit rape and abuse their families, etc unless they (hopefully) learn or get taught that these things are wrong/ immoral. Religion teaches good morals. Thats its main purpose. To educate the people on morals/ ethics.

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on January 31st, 2012

• Its still through conditioning and not through religion.
  Education works in the same way conditioning does. Its why morality is consistant within social groups.
  Thats not Utopian, there are several other things that cause people to challenge their morality, like greed and poverty.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 1st, 2012

• If what you say is true and religion does not teach or at least influence our morals (our sense of right and wrong), then religion is harmless. So why do you (the anti-theists) fear religion?

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on February 1st, 2012

• I said atheism doesn't effect atheists the way theism effects theists. Theists choose their religion to justify their morals but then these morals become Gods words and so infallible. Thats when they become dangerous
  It also keeps morals archaic and doesn't give them an opportunity to develop.
  The morals that were developed through conditioning and social interaction in the medieval days becomes laws for today.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 1st, 2012

• Most, if not all, religions' moral codes are based on the Golden Rule.
  
  The Golden Rule is timeless and infallible...it's only it's application by man that is not.
  
  The Golden Rule should be common sense but unfortunately common sense is not common...until it is taught widely.

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on February 1st, 2012

• What is The Golden Rule? Can you name me one piece of morality that isn't circumstantial?

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 1st, 2012

• The Golden Rule is the ethic of reciprocity. It is not really a rule in the usual sense. It is a guiding principle from which the rules prohibiting murder, theft, cheating, etc. have been extrapolated.
  
  It's teaching is not confined to religion but all the major religions traditionally teach a version of the Golden Rule.
  
  
  The Universality of the Golden Rule in the World Religions
  
  Christianity: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets."
  - Matthew 7:1
  
  Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state."
  - Analects 12:2
  
  Buddhism: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
  - Udana-Varga 5,1
  
  Hinduism: "This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you."
  - Mahabharata 5,1517
  
  Islam: "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself."
  - Sunnah
  
  Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary."
  - Talmud, Shabbat 3id
  
  Taoism: "Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss."
  - Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
  
  Zoroastrianism: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself."
  - Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5
  
  http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html
  
  There's a pretty good analysis on Wikipedia:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on February 1st, 2012

• Did you know every religion also mentions the sun? Its like they could all just see it. By shear coincidence every one of them could see the sun and found it beneficial.
  It doesn't take a message from God to come to something so basic, but this rule is by no means a God send. There are plenty of times where this rule would be useless. The exceptions to every rule as it were.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 2nd, 2012

• Did you know every religion also mentions God's laws? Its like they could all just see it. By shear coincidence every one of them could see God laws and found it beneficial. ;~)
  
  Yes, it doesn't take a message from God to come to see something so basic. It's the way things work...and the way things work can be observed in nature and in our interactions with our fellow man...which is probably where the sages who wrote all the holy books saw it. But not everyone sees it immediately. Which is why it must be taught. That is what religion does. Teach.

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on February 2nd, 2012

• It also becomes a propaganda machine.
  
  Not all religions mention Gods Laws, just the Judaic ones.
  Most other religions don't tend to have commandments, just like you said teachings.
  
  It adds no validity to the need for a moral God to form morality, we establish it ourselves at the end of the day. Religion teaches its morality but it can be taught just as well by secular means by a secular government.
  Religion serves no unique purpose, and atheists have no common morality to form a church with.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 2nd, 2012

• What is propaganda but publicity intended to make people believe something. Anti-theists have been writing books and setting up websites in order to spread their own intolerant and hateful propaganda.
  
  I have provided a list of religions that teach The Golden Rule as God's fundamental Law from which other religious laws/ commandments are derived. They are not all Abrahamic religions.
  
  We establish God's moral laws in the same way we establish God's scientific, natural laws. By the observation of patterns and cycles. By learning how things work...and how they break down/ fail...generally. That does not negate the existence of God.
  
  When The Golden Rule is observed and followed, relationships and society are successful/ beneficial/ "works". When the rule is not observed, when it is ignored and "broken", relationships and society break down/ fail. Generally, that's the way it works. (BTW, That's the definition of what a rule is. "The way things work, generally".)
  
  Morality can be taught by secular means but the fact of the matter is, it is not. Traditionally, it has been the purpose of religion in society to teach morals. Contrary to what the anti-theists are saying, an institution that exists for the purpose of teaching of good morals cannot be "evil'.
  
  Does the fact that atheists have no common morality mean that they believe morals are a matter of personal opinion? Does each individual get to "make it up as they go along" and as convenient? This could be a problem. By moral relativistic/ subjectivist reasoning, a rapist could decide that rape was not immoral and that you and I have no right to force our morals down his throat

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on February 2nd, 2012

• None of those are Gods laws. They are teachings. Laws would be like the 10 commandments. Its a difficult concept to grasp without direct experience with them but not all religions are structured like Christianity.
  Hinduism has no God's laws, God just sides with anyone who shows devotion on that one.
  You also quoted Buddhism which definitely doesn't have a God's law
  
  Since the enlightenment era morality has been based in the secular realm predominantly. Before the enlightenment era religion had the monopoly, it was known as the dark ages.
  You should look into how our society is structured based on the enlightenment era rather than Christian values as we are popularly taught. Its just not true.
  
  The Law is secular, the education system is secular.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 2nd, 2012

• And yet it's a fact that many people still base their morality on religious teachings. Civil law, even though it is secular, is written by human beings. Human beings who's sense of right and wrong have been influenced by religious moral teachings, even if only/mainly cultural.

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on February 2nd, 2012

• People attribute things to religion that they should to the enlightenment due to popular misconception.
  The morality we use in the modern world is based on the enlightenment period predominantly.
  Religious teachings developed around what people found moral in the day of its writing.
  Today people change meaning to make it seem rational or just make up stuff to say it comes from religion.
  At the end of the day you can source modern ethics, morality and social conduct to the enlightenment.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 2nd, 2012

• I don't want to belabour the point and repeat myself but you don't seem to have fully understood what I said.
  
  You say; "Religious teachings developed around what people found moral in the day of its writing."
  
  This is not really true.
  
  The Golden Rule was established thousands of years ago in various cultures and still holds as good today as it would in any age.
  
  Most of the lesser moral laws are derived from this rule..."Thou shalt not murder, steal, cheat" are timeless as well. They are derived from the Golden Rule thus; "You wouldn't want people to murder, steal or cheat you so don't do it to them."
  
  But yes, some moral laws were time-specific. ...but still they were derived from the same timeless, universal, religious moral principle. ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.")
  
  Let's take slavery for example. Today we feel that it is wrong but in bygone eras it was considered a normal practice. Many of religious and civil laws regarding slavery were for the protection of the slave. This too was based on the Golden Rule i.e. "Treat your slave the way you would have liked to be treated if you were a slave yourself."
  
  
  On the Age of Enlightenment: Do you realize that most, if not all of the leaders of the Age of Enlightenment (Voltaire, Rousseau, John Locke, Isaac Newton, Spinoza, etc.) were theists. The thing that made them enlightened was that they were not fundamentalists but they were "Deists" of various types and at least self-identified "cultural Christians". Many were outspoken against atheism.
  
  This is what John Locke had to say about atheism: "Locke argued that atheists should not be tolerated because 'Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist'."
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_Concerning_Toleration
  
  "Cultural Christian"
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian
  
  "A cultural Christian is a secular or irreligious individual who still significantly identifies with Christian culture. Deists of the 18th and early 19th centuries, such as Napoleon and various Founding Fathers of the United States, similarly considered themselves part of Christian culture, despite their doubts about the divinity of Jesus."
  
  By the way, even Richard Dawkins calls himself a "cultural Christian". I suppose this means he has more in common with a Christian than he has with an ex-Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu atheist.

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on February 2nd, 2012

• They have very little in common with the Christianity of the middle east though, the first Christianity. Its just what we perceive Christianity as today.
  
  We first learned to speak using grunts, thats not to say grunts are a message from a God. Morality is based on a derived starting point, which would have been understood long before it was written down.
  
  People would have been following the rule before they knew it was a rule through conditioning,

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 3rd, 2012

• Thats because God-ordained rules/laws are not dependent on humans being able to understand them or express them in words. They just are. They are the very nature of reality.
  We can't change the laws of God and Nature. (Same thing, really.) We can, however, be ignorant of them or ignore them...at our peril, of course.

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on February 7th, 2012

• In what way are laws of physics and laws of morality the same thing?
  What's the pont in a rule that can't be understood?

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 7th, 2012

• They're all part of the same body of laws. I understand the rule and I'm sure I am not alone.
  
  "Einstein said the laws of science and the laws of ethics are basically one and the same. Using the example of the question “Why should we not lie?”, he explains, “Lying destroys confidence in the statements of other people. Without such confidence, social cooperation is made impossible or at least difficult. Such cooperation, however, is essential to make human life possible and tolerable. This means that the rule ‘Thou shalt not lie’ has been traced back to the demands ‘Human life shall be preserved’ and ‘Pain and sorrow shall be lessened as much as possible’.”
  
  Stephen Hawkings take on God is something similar...
  
  "When asked by CNN's Larry King whether he believed in God, Hawking answered:
  
  Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe."

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on February 29th, 2012

• So you're saying lying is always immoral?
  Hawking wasn't talking about morality.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 29th, 2012

• "Always" is a strong word but it pays to be truthful even if only to build up a reputation as a honest person... just in case one day the Nazis come knocking on your door. You want them to believe you when you say you're not hiding any Jews in your basement. You want them to take your word for it, don't you?
  
  I know Hawking wasn't talking about morality but I would include morality in the body of laws of the universe.

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on February 29th, 2012

• So the laws of the universe are "always"
  But morality is not "always"

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 29th, 2012

• Who says the laws of the universe are "always"? Quantum laws are different to Newtonian laws but they're always there. So it depends on what you mean by "always". "They are always so in a given situation or circumstance with the same set variables" might be a better way to put it. Same goes for the laws of morality. May be something like...It's "always wrong" to kill someone maliciously but it's not "always wrong" to kill someone in self-defense. Same act - different circumstances.

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on February 29th, 2012

• By always I mean laws of physics are constant.
  Quantum physics is theoretical science and hasn't been fully explained.
  Moral laws are situational.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on February 29th, 2012

• Like I said...They are constant in a given situation with a given set of variables.
  
  But they all are applications and extrapolations from one or two fundamental principles.

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on March 1st, 2012

• Why are you so certain God does not exist. Scientists are discovering new things all the time. A good scientist is not certain about anything. (Only your hero, Richard Dawkins is certain. Which is why he's not a good scientist. :P)
  
  "Despite his criticism of religion, [cosmologist Carl] Sagan denied that he was an atheist and said that he hated the term, saying:
  
  'An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid."'
  
  Have you seen the documentary "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?"
  
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00rgg31

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on March 1st, 2012

• I'm not saying there isn't one, I just don't believe in one. The inclusion of one complicates the system.
  
  "They are constant in a given situation with a given set of variables."
  
  Lying has a very strange scale, so the variables of "thou shalt not lie" is far too varied to call it a rule.
  A neo-con lying about weapons for a war, because he believes it needs to be done to save the world, is moral or immoral?
  
  Lying is built into our system, for example when you instinctively bite your tongue as a defence mechanism. Saying its something you do to move away from God is a far more complex idea.
  
  In addition to this nature has no morality. Morality is something we make so we can survive as a group. A lone man in the woods is not likely to live long in the woods. The woods are amoral. Something will kill him as it has no social obligation to him.
  
  Through morality we interact with the group, any group. The best way the group can get along to make sure they can work as a team to fight off anything in the woods, is to follow the Golden rule.
  
  The groups that couldn't, died. The ones that survived had to have, hence have a Golden rule.
  
  In nature gravity is always gravity. In morality good is not always good.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on March 1st, 2012

• Complicating the prettiness of the system is no reason to deny something. (To me it does the opposite.) A scientist does not manufacture the system, he merely observes it and tries to understand it. If the science books need to be re-written then they need to be re-written. The more scientists discover the messier the system anyway. Many new discoveries are messing with the system. Nothing is as expected. Different phenomena and rules are being discovered all the time. You should watch that documentary.
  
  There are many reasons why lying is wrong/ stupid/ unwise. Too obvious to go into here. Any denial of reality is bound to cause problems down the line.
  
  Morality is important BECAUSE human beings are social animals. Obey the Golden Rule and the group thrives, flourishes, is successful. When the group thrives the individual thrives and when the individual thrives the group thrives. Therefore obeying the Golden Rule is wise, good and right....for the individual AND the group.
  
  Disobeying the Golden Rule is "sin" and the "wages of sin is death" (You said that in a different way) Therefore disobeying/ ignoring the Golden Rule is foolish, wrong and bad. That is God and Nature's objective and absolute morality. And it never changes, no matter the era or the culture or whether people agree with it or not.

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on March 1st, 2012

• So God is made up by man so they don't get killed and can pass on their genes?

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on March 1st, 2012

• No God (and God's laws) is recognized by (wise) men so they don't get killed and can pass on their genes. The morons don't recognize God and get killed. It's good for the gene pool! ;-D
  
  Oh yes. Regarding your statement "I'm not saying there isn't one, I just don't believe in one." I just want to say I don't buy that little piece of chicanery.
  
  If you admit the possibility of something then why would you argue so passionately against the possibility of it. Admit it. It's convenient to call yourself an agnostic AND an atheist.
  
  The agnostic part is just to cover your ass when someone asks you to prove your belief that God does not exist. So you can say "Oh, but I'm not saying God doesn't exist. I'm just saying I don't believe He exists." My bullshit detectors go off the charts for that one. ;-D

  • Report
  

  by Marky Mark on March 1st, 2012

• Gods laws are established through secular means though. Its like saying anything we learn has to come from another inteliigence. There is no need for an outside intelligence for apes to form the Golden rule. We did after all evolve to know it. The solo versions died out very quickly.
  
  No, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in any Gods. It is possible that everything is created by a magic bearded man just as it is an FSM. But if we follow science and it's conclusions there is nothing to say there is a God. There is no actual evidence, just opinion about what could be.
  Horses may be able to talk and refuse to around people. I just don't believe it. There is no evidence.

  • Report
  

  by LePoupon is a proper gander. on March 2nd, 2012

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Interesting.. I'll have to research that.

  • Report
  

  by aldonoir on February 29th, 2012

Comments

Comments

Comments