Why don't you want your government to rule religiously if religious people share your values?

[stevecanuck]

Something arising from nature, people evolved naturally (if one is an atheist anyway) did they not?

so how can a product of nature not behave naturally?

Example???

How can the natural produce the unnatural?

Example???

where do unnatural things come from?

Such as???

 

[watsup]

Something arising from nature, people evolved naturally (if one is an atheist anyway) did they not? so how can a product of nature not behave naturally? How can the natural produce the unnatural? where do unnatural things come from? isn't evolution a natural process?

Totally ridiculous questions of zero merit.

 

[ataraxia]

Another awful thread, religion does not own nor did it even invent the concepts of ethics, values, moral code, social order, or law.

Every single one of those concepts predates every single piece of text that became something for any of the Abrahamic Religions.

Because of, there is no reason to appeal to theocracy... not a single reason at all.

Yes. The moral/ethical ideas and sentiments come first. Only later do they get a “God says” tacked on to them and turned into a religion.

“ Intellectually, religious emotions are not creative but conservative. They attach themselves readily to the current view of the world and consecrate it. They steep and dye intellectual fabrics in the seething vat of emotions; they do not form their warp and woof. There is not, I think, an instance of any large idea about the world being independently generated by religion. “
-John Dewey

 

[spud_meister]

A huge problem with all this (one atheists seem to shy away from discussing) is that if there truly is no God, then "religion" and belief in "God" and all of the many trappings of "religious people", organizations etc, are all purely natural things.

By definition (for the atheist) unnatural things cannot exist so objecting to religions and God and so on is no different to objecting to homosexuality or transgenderism or any other aspect of reality; if people believing in things that are not true has arisen naturally though evolution and anthropology then what are they all actually objecting to if not nature itself?

This would be a great argument, if one religion was inherent to all people. Religion is a trait arising from the natural phenomena of culture, like music. Just as music is a response to discovering the different sounds objects make, religion is a response to inexplicable phenomena. Of course, as more and more phenomena are explicable, religion finds itself shrinking. Things like homosexuality and transgenderism exist independently, as an inherent trait of human behaviour, an objective part of nature, unlike religion or music, which is a subjective part.

 

[Citizen]

You go too far here, in my opinion, in claiming that opposing abortion on demand is a "religious value." There are atheists who oppose this and have posted in the last week about this. I don't know whether those who are "non-religious" oppose homosexuality, but surely there are some and simply because they think that this is "unnatural." And there are common-sense reasons to oppose recreational drug use, as I'm sure you're already aware.

What some consider religious values, others consider moral values. I look at both the same. I believe we need to keep morality out of government.

 

[RAMOSS]

What some consider religious values, others consider moral values. I look at both the same. I believe we need to keep morality out of government.

I am going to rephrase that quite a bit. I think we should get regulating morality out of government. Politicians as a whole already don't have any morality, particularly if they claim it.

 

[Variant]

I hear most here think our values are something we are more or less born with and of which we learn more through general knowledge as we grow up. If you, as an atheist/agnostic don't have values any different from religious people, why would you have an issue with the government ruling by religious laws (laws of any Abrahamic religion — yes, Christians have laws or rules if you like)?

No two people really share all values. And, I am defining values here in what we are willing to act to accomplish, as that is how you value something. I certainly don't want people murdering each other so that's fine, but I would't pass laws that keept women from teaching men in schools, or remove evolutionary biology from my colleges.

Religion is the way some decide who gets to speak for the Gods.

It is the particular prejudices and views that get passed into law and focused on, not God's. What you get with theocracy is the arbitrary opinions on God's values and the priorities of man. What governs them is not an actual religion but some interpretation of it skewed and twisted by power dynamics of those enforcing it.

So:
In the antebellum south those who spoke for "God" would have wanted slavery to be legal for instance.

Ultimately everyone, even religious people with differences, will be oppressed by whatever orthodoxy such a government institution will want to enforce. Theocracy is not known in any way for protecting peoples rights to religious differences.

Example:
Pakistan: man sentenced to death for blasphemy on Facebook | Pakistan | The Guardian

 

[Variant]

But they do exist in nature if we and what we do are part of nature.

Like I said earlier, atheists really do seem to struggle with this.

Making a distinction between natural and artificial isn't difficult. You'd have to be being purposefully obtuse to misunderstand when people mean to make it.

 

[blarg]

I hear most here think our values are something we are more or less born with and of which we learn more through general knowledge as we grow up. If you, as an atheist/agnostic don't have values any different from religious people, why would you have an issue with the government ruling by religious laws (laws of any Abrahamic religion — yes, Christians have laws or rules if you like)?

no one has shown a god exists to sin against and if god exists what displeases it may be good bad or neutral to you


people using gods to justify whatever they want seems bad

 

[blarg]

A huge problem with all this (one atheists seem to shy away from discussing) is that if there truly is no God, then "religion" and belief in "God" and all of the many trappings of "religious people", organizations etc, are all purely natural things.

By definition (for the atheist) unnatural things cannot exist so objecting to religions and God and so on is no different to objecting to homosexuality or transgenderism or any other aspect of reality; if people believing in things that are not true has arisen naturally though evolution and anthropology then what are they all actually objecting to if not nature itself?

something's not good or bad because it exists there problem solved

 

[nota bene]

What some consider religious values, others consider moral values. I look at both the same. I believe we need to keep morality out of government.

I don't see how this is possible.

Moral: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
moral attitudes. Moral | Definition of Moral at Dictionary.com

Government: the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society. Government | Definition of Government at Dictionary.com

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Example???

Example???

Such as???

You'll have to excuse me but since when are your responses - all of which are questions - answers to my questions?

I asked so how can a product of nature not behave naturally? and you respond with Example???

WTF.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Making a distinction between natural and artificial isn't difficult. You'd have to be being purposefully obtuse to misunderstand when people mean to make it.

I don't misunderstand nor am I being "obtuse" I don't see how we can really draw a distinction between natural and unnatural.

If natural is what arises from the laws of nature and we arose from the laws of nature then surely in a literal sense we and everything we do are just manifestations of those laws of nature.

If this line of reasoning bothers you it should, that's why I pursued it to get see how atheists respond.

 

[ataraxia]

I don't misunderstand nor am I being "obtuse" I don't see how we can really draw a distinction between natural and unnatural.

If natural is what arises from the laws of nature and we arose from the laws of nature then surely in a literal sense we and everything we do are just manifestations of those laws of nature.

If this line of reasoning bothers you it should, that's why I pursued it to get see how atheists respond.

Then children’s belief in the boogie-man under their bed at night is natural. Does that mean we shouldn’t try to reassure them and talk them out of it, because that would be unnatural?

 

[Rumpel]

I hear most here think our values are something we are more or less born with and of which we learn more through general knowledge as we grow up. If you, as an atheist/agnostic don't have values any different from religious people, why would you have an issue with the government ruling by religious laws (laws of any Abrahamic religion — yes, Christians have laws or rules if you like)?

I do not quite see what you mean.

 

[stevecanuck]

You'll have to excuse me but since when are your responses - all of which are questions - answers to my questions?

I asked so how can a product of nature not behave naturally? and you respond with Example???

WTF.

WTF indeed. What do mean by the above? I need just one little example of what the hell you're talking about to be able to respond.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Then children’s belief in the boogie-man under their bed at night is natural. Does that mean we shouldn’t try to reassure them and talk them out of it, because that would be unnatural?

On the contrary, I'm arguing that nothing we see in nature or arising from nature can actually really be termed "unnatural".

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

WTF indeed. What do mean by the above? I need just one little example of what the hell you're talking about to be able to respond.

I posted this:

people evolved naturally (if one is an atheist anyway) did they not?
so how can a product of nature not behave naturally?
How can the natural produce the unnatural?
where do unnatural things come from?
isn't evolution a natural process?

You "response" was

Example???

Example???

Such as???

Can you not see? my questions are themselves ASKING IF THERE CAN EVEN BE EXAMPLES so why are you asking me to PROVIDE EXAMPLES ???????????????????????????????

If I asked "How can a plane fly if it has no wings" would you think it intelligent to respond to that question with "Example???" ? or "Where do wingless planes come from?" to respond with "Example??"

MFWTF.

 

[watsup]

I don't see how this is possible.

Moral: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
moral attitudes. Moral | Definition of Moral at Dictionary.com

Government: the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society. Government | Definition of Government at Dictionary.com

This sounds correct, although I prefer the use of the term “ethics”. Morality normally refers to the rules set by a God and sanctified, so to speak, in the tenets of a religion. Since there is a separation of church and state, at least in the United State, then the more secular term of ethics is probably a more suitable word.

 

[watsup]

On the contrary, I'm arguing that nothing we see in nature or arising from nature can actually really be termed "unnatural".

“Unnatural” is actually a very strange word and can also have the meaning of “abnormal” such that religionists can use the word as an inventive against gays, for instance.
The primary definition of the word: contrary to the ordinary course of nature.

unnatural def - Google Search

The key word here is “normal” which indicates nature working in its own without the interference of the use of intelligence by man to alter its course. To try to claim, for instance, that a motorcycle is “natural” because man evolved and then built the motorcycle is a butchering of the definition of natural and of the normal usage of the English language. In other words, it’s sophistry. Again.

 

[watsup]

I don't misunderstand nor am I being "obtuse" I don't see how we can really draw a distinction between natural and unnatural.

If natural is what arises from the laws of nature and we arose from the laws of nature then surely in a literal sense we and everything we do are just manifestations of those laws of nature.

If this line of reasoning bothers you it should, that's why I pursued it to get see how atheists respond.

To repeat, this line of SO-CALLED reasoning depends on totally ignoring the standard definition of the term natural and thus shows a lack of objectivity and REAL reason.

 

[watsup]

To repeat, this line of SO-CALLED reasoning depends on totally ignoring the standard definition of the term natural and thus shows a lack of objectivity and REAL reason.

What we are seeing here from S and from some others in the other thread is, quite simply, a stubborn MISUSE of the word “natural” as defined in an objective manner by a reliable source dictionary. If that’s what they want to do, so be it, but it leads nowhere in terms of honest and thoughtful debate, which depends on at least a modicum of objectivity.

 

[ataraxia]

On the contrary, I'm arguing that nothing we see in nature or arising from nature can actually really be termed "unnatural".

Okaaay... so can we still not have religion and not get accused of doing something unnatural, as if it was a bad thing?

 

[watsup]

E

You'll have to excuse me but since when are your responses - all of which are questions - answers to my questions?

I asked so how can a product of nature not behave naturally? and you respond with Example???

WTF.

A product of nature can “behave” naturally, but when that product uses his or her intelligence to then alter other nature, the results are NOT “natural” but rather manufactured, and thus a motorcycle is not “natural” but rather manufactured. Look up the definitions. They are different.

 

[watsup]

On the contrary, I'm arguing that nothing we see in nature or arising from nature can actually really be termed "unnatural".

A motorcycle is not “arising from nature”. It is arising from MANUFACTURING. Look up the definitions. They are different.