Nebraska Capitol to Have Atheist Display Instead of Nativity for Christmas

[thenobes]

They are the illogical ones.

For by what standard are they moral? Their own. It all comes down to their gut feelings, irrational. And their gut feelings are, ultimately, in the rational, non-theistic world, no better than anyone else’s.

At least protestants can point to guidance by the Holy Spirit when they claim authority to interpret scriptures. They may be illogical in the results of their belief (ie That the Holy Spirit would allow a chaos of interpretations), but at least they recognize the lack of truth within themselves.

peace
steve

 

[thenobes]

In addition, since there is no external source of morality, the avoidance of chaos is only possible by the use of force to ensure that opposite views be eliminated. Any appeal to reason will counter the “gut feeling” intrinsic to the atheist’s morality.

peace
steve

 

[7_Sorrows]

the atheists have all year-why do they choose the week of Christmas?
why don’t they choose the week of Hannukah or Passover or an Islamic holiday? why the week of Christmas? why not Rosh Hashanah when Jews celebrate the new year? they are making an anti-Christianity statement.

 

[TheAtheist]

They are the illogical ones.

For by what standard are they moral? Their own. It all comes down to their gut feelings, irrational. And their gut feelings are, ultimately, in the rational, non-theistic world, no better than anyone else’s.

At least protestants can point to guidance by the Holy Spirit when they claim authority to interpret scriptures. They may be illogical in the results of their belief (ie That the Holy Spirit would allow a chaos of interpretations), but at least they recognize the lack of truth within themselves.

peace
steve

I’ve never really understood this line of argumentation, especially coming from the Catholic viewpoint.

By your own traditions intellectual defense of the Aristotlean-Thomistic philosophy, man already has a natural inclination toward morality in the form of Virtue Ethics.

Its the basis of Natural Law Theory which your Church condones.

Its also how your Church Fathers explained why Graeco-Roman pagans could in fact be moral even without divine revelation. You know, Ambrose of Milan’s evaluation of Epictetus, etc.etc.

I also don’t know how people who happen to come outside of the Catholic faith or Christianity in general but who also happen to subscribe to a religious viewpoint should interpret the statement you’ve made.

Are you essentially saying “Only Christians are moral?”

If your not, then how does say a religion like Daoism, or Hinduism which is unrelated to Christian revelation, are capable of generating codes of ethics based of their own religious commitments?

 

[TheAtheist]

the atheists have all year-why do they choose the week of Christmas?
why don’t they choose the week of Hannukah or Passover or an Islamic holiday? why the week of Christmas? why not Rosh Hashanah when Jews celebrate the new year? they are making an anti-Christianity statement.

I think the answer is quite obvious - most of these people who go about doing such events are for the most part, “rejectors” of the predominate religious culture of the area.

I’m sure if they were Ex-Muslims for instance, you’d see some other stunt or gimmick pulled during Eid or Ramadan. I’ve personally seen billboards put up in Muslim predominate neighborhoods with a kind of “You are not Alone” type message…that are of course torn down or defaced some how.

As for the Jews… at least from my experience, Western Atheists don’t seem to mind them at all for a very simple reason - They Don’t proselytize.

Also from practical perspective - can anyone really say anything 'anti-Jewish" and not get away with being branded as an anti-Semite and have the charge racism leveled against them?

For all intents and purposes due to their historic circumstances, they are essentially a “protected class” if you will…much to the chagrin and ire of certain Muslims who feel they “get away with too much.”

 

[Biggin]

Hmmm. A couple of points, taken only from the article, since that is the only source I have read. One is that the group sponsoring the display is a coalition which includes atheists as well as humanists. It seems a wide range of interests and philosophies.

When you refer to atheists claiming that religions have been horrible in history (which is actually quite accurate), that is not a point this coalition is trying to make. Neither are they looking to governments or societies to proclaim.

The second thing is this group does want to make a point that there should be opportunity for all viewpoints to be represented, not only one, and that church and state should continue to be separate. Reasonable.

I know they are using Christmas to make their point, and it is getting their voice heard. It doesn’t help, however, to speak of Stalin or what/who they supposedly admire. It shouldn’t be an ‘us vs them’ conflict.

All that being said, nativities are lovely and I hope that next year the Thomas More Society gets the paperwork done in time to have one.

Your comment is full of the typical contradictions.
1.“ALL” viewpoints to be represented. Yeah, OK, cough cough.
2. “Wide Viewpoint” from two parties that are essentially the same.
3. “Religions have been horrible” Well, let’s hear your argument on that one.
4. Separation of Church and State" When EVER in US history has the STATE ever enacted a Religion?

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Your comment is full of the typical contradictions.
1.“ALL” viewpoints to be represented. Yeah, OK, cough cough.
2. “Wide Viewpoint” from two parties that are essentially the same.
3. “Religions have been horrible” Well, let’s hear your argument on that one.
4. Separation of Church and State" When EVER in US history has the STATE ever enacted a Religion?

1. Perhaps I should reiterate the phrase ‘the opportunity’ for all viewpoints to be represented. Every group gets a shot at representation - even humanists.
2. Do you mean the coalition? The atheists and humanists and freethinkers? True, they say that they are non-theistic, but as a coalition, they are more than just two organizations (they named four) and focus on a range of issues.
3. ‘Religions have been horrible in history.’ That was the quote from the article. I agreed with the person quoted; do you think it is a contested opinion?
4. Sorry? Are you asking when the State has endorsed a specific religion? Or a religious holiday? Utah has Pioneer Day. That is LDS for certain. Kentucky tried to retain the Ten Commandments in all state school classrooms until the Supreme Court said no. Or of course the national celebration of Christmas, which the Coalition is attempting to shift to another focus. Did you have something else in mind?

 

[Peter_J]

I think the answer is quite obvious - most of these people who go about doing such events are for the most part, “rejectors” of the predominate religious culture of the area.

I’m sure if they were Ex-Muslims for instance, you’d see some other stunt or gimmick pulled during Eid or Ramadan. I’ve personally seen billboards put up in Muslim predominate neighborhoods with a kind of “You are not Alone” type message…that are of course torn down or defaced some how.

As for the Jews… at least from my experience, Western Atheists don’t seem to mind them at all for a very simple reason - They Don’t proselytize.

**Also from practical perspective - can anyone really say anything 'anti-Jewish" and not get away with being branded as an anti-Semite and have the charge racism leveled against them?
**

Have you been to Europe?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I would suppose that, by definition, atheism cannot lead to moral nihilism simply because atheism makes no positive claim that leads anywhere, really, except stating where it doesn’t lead – and even that quite obliquely. It isn’t possible to build much on a purely negative claim.

Now, it might be argued that like with a vacuum, the absence of any ground for morality simply leads to all kinds of weird “stuff” rushing in to fill the void, which might lead to a kind of moral nihilism in the absence of any approved filtering mechanism.

I suppose it is up to the atheists to provide the ground for their proposed morality, one which properly accounts for why human agents ought to be or act morally to begin with, rather than just talking about how atheists can be just as moral as the next guy. That kind of talk begins to get a little thin when atheists haven’t filled in the details with regard to why anyone SHOULD act morally (as opposed to immorally) when the word “morally” simply means the kind of behaviours they themselves happen to approve of for some reason or other – which, it might be observed, never seems to get specified.

I understand that TheAtheist on this forum has made a case for how followers of various religions – or even none – can be moral grounded on something like Natural Law Theory, but even that presumes the actual existence of proper ends for which human beings are to act and that it is in the very nature of those ends that makes it obligatory or incumbent upon all humans to act towards them. Yet, if no transcendent purpose for the universe exists and human beings exist for no real ends beyond those which we set for ourselves then it appears to be a rather thin sense of moral “obligation” that is being spoken of.

If human beings are merely complex accretions of molecular activity, then the value of any particular human life becomes purely an aesthetic and tenuous one with regards to any atheistic moral system. A particular human being might be valued by others with respect to the specific arrangement of molecules they have attained – much like a Mona Lisa or, even more to the point, a work by Seurat or Signac – but that just seems inadequate with regard to the grounds for valuing other human beings that a robust morality would seem to require.

I mean if human beings are, indeed, eternal in potential, each created and loved by the 3Omni–Creator and Ground of all that exists, that view seems to set a rather high benchmark, one that the “aggregations of molecules” view does not even come close to matching in terms of warrant for acting “morally.”

At this point, the atheist (generic) might stand up and remonstrate: “We make due.”

In a Peter Singer way of “making due,” perhaps. But is that REALLY a better morality? Or even a good one?

It depends, I suppose, how much one loves and cares for those around them and what one is willing to tolerate from humanity at large.

 

[Peter_Plato]

1. ‘Religions have been horrible in history.’ That was the quote from the article. I agreed with the person quoted; do you think it is a contested opinion?

No, it is just that religions (or at least multitudes of adherents and most founders of religions) have also been sublimely good and very often great in history – a fact that frequently seems to be forgotten or deliberately overlooked by those both contesting and not contesting the opinion.

 

[TheAtheist]

Have you been to Europe?

Yes I have. I thought however, that since we were speaking of Nebraska, it was implicit that we were speaking in the American context.

 

[TheAtheist]

I understand that TheAtheist on this forum has made a case for how followers of various religions – or even none – can be moral grounded on something like Natural Law Theory, but even that presumes the actual existence of proper ends for which human beings are to act and that it is in the very nature of those ends that makes it obligatory or incumbent upon all humans to act towards them. Yet, if no transcendent purpose for the universe exists and human beings exist for no real ends beyond those which we set for ourselves then it appears to be a rather thin sense of moral “obligation” that is being spoken of.

To clarify, I didn’t really make a case - i simply pointed out what seemed to be a contradiction.

Every person I’ve ever spoken to capable of giving an account of the philosophical and moral teachings of the Catholic Church eventually refer back to the Aristotlean-Thomistic tradition and its theological/philosophical understanding of morality and ethics.

Whether I or any other atheist or any other non-Thomist for that matter believe in it is irrelevant - because the Catholic Church does. In other words, while it might be possible to give an alternative account for our ethical codes, the Thomist position seems to be that we are in error in our understanding of the situation and that thereal reason why moral agency can exist in the non-Christian is because of Natural Law.

If i had to make an analogy - take the issue of Combustion and Oxidation.

Around the 17th century, a theory about a substance called Phlogiston came into vogue which purported to explain why metals rusted or how masses burned.

The theory was eventually replaced by the caloric theory of combustion, which itself was replaced by the mechanical theory of heat.

In all 3 cases, what you see is an attempt to give an account as to explain a phenomenon. In no case did any of them deny that the phenomenon being evaluated was not occurring.

Now look back at the post I was responding to -

is the person giving an account for why atheists can be moral?

Or is he denying the possibility that atheists can be moral?

Either questions has consequences of course, but the latter choice instantly moves a segment of the population into a rather shall we say, sub-human level.

Its one thing to make a distinction in degree between two groups.

Quite another when one makes a distinction in kind… for as history bears out, human beings are quite uncivilized and less than charitable to those the do not acknowledge as part of their species/race/culture.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Pax Christi.

Maybe we can let them put up a display on Stalin’s birthday.

God save us.

My thought as well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To clarify, I didn’t really make a case - i simply pointed out what seemed to be a contradiction.

Every person I’ve ever spoken to capable of giving an account of the philosophical and moral teachings of the Catholic Church eventually refer back to the Aristotlean-Thomistic tradition and its theological/philosophical understanding of morality and ethics.

Whether I or any other atheist or any other non-Thomist for that matter believe in it is irrelevant - because the Catholic Church does. In other words, while it might be possible to give an alternative account for our ethical codes, the Thomist position seems to be that we are in error in our understanding of the situation and that thereal reason why moral agency can exist in the non-Christian is because of Natural Law.

If i had to make an analogy - take the issue of Combustion and Oxidation.

Around the 17th century, a theory about a substance called Phlogiston came into vogue which purported to explain why metals rusted or how masses burned.

The theory was eventually replaced by the caloric theory of combustion, which itself was replaced by the mechanical theory of heat.

In all 3 cases, what you see is an attempt to give an account as to explain a phenomenon. In no case did any of them deny that the phenomenon was not occurring.

Now look back at the post I was responding to -

is the person giving an account for why atheists can be moral?

Or is he denying that possibility that atheists can be moral?

Sure atheists can be moral, but that isn’t because they are atheists. In fact has nothing to do with being atheist and largely in spite of it.

Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition relies upon A-T metaphysics, especially the idea of final causation, the reasons (final ends) why things exist determines their purpose and their nature. We are human because we have a particular nature and teleology. Aristotle reasoned to the Unmoved Mover – God. Without transcendent reality, without the teleology of ends and goods, morality makes no sense because the fundamentals for morality (end goods) are removed.

Atheism (read as eliminative materialism) removes final causes and teleology (and, a fortiori, morality, as well.) If teleology is reduced to human determined ends, the most “objective” ends can become is determined by the agreement of human beings, which makes morality, by definition, not obligatory, but voluntary, since agreement is essentially voluntary.

That is not such a bad thing, in itself, but it doesn’t do anything to define the nature of what it means to be human in the first place, which is what Aristotle worked very hard to define. The “voluntary” nature of morality without a mooring on the nature of man becomes unhinged and undefined. We are whatever we want to make ourselves to be – becomes the final end because there is no way of prioritizing obligation over volition and that fact kicks the ground for morality out from under the moral system itself. It becomes vacuous. We are seeing the results everyday in post-modern societies. There can be no claim about what is right or wrong except what the dominant voices say it is and that changes daily.

No obligation except to “freedom” of will, but what is “will” itself tethered to, without a prior sense of the “good,” independent of the will?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t see your point here. What does Stalin have to do with anything?

Having agreed with the statement, I’ll express why.

Stalin is a representation of communism, in the west. Myself being old enough to remember the Cold War and the Soviet Union. A condition where the State replaced religion with itself.

Where is morality defined in a communist state? By the state. What is “good”? What the state defines it is.

This is what atheists are aiming for, even when they speak a humanist’s language.

 

[TheAtheist]

Sure atheists can be moral, but that isn’t because they are atheists. In fact has nothing to do with being atheist and largely in spite of it.

Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition relies upon A-T metaphysics

I think your missing the point of my inquiry then, allow me to break it down.

1.) The poster I was responding to seemed to indicate a position opposite from yours and those who uphold the philosophical tradition you espouse.

2.) the Poster is a Catholic.

3.) Having spent much of may pre-degree days sharing a lab with a scion of Jesuit education (hence the familiarity with A-T metaphysics, much of what you’ve written is essentially old ground for me) as a partner I found the poster’s assertion quite strange and so decided to inquire as to how he could hold the views he has.

I simply wanted to see how he squared away his assertion against the tradition that he subscribes to.

 

[TheAtheist]

This is what atheists are aiming for, even when they speak a humanist’s language.

I’m starting to think that what places like CAF, Ummah.org, and all the other little pockets on the internet really need are less philosophers and a lot more anthropologists.

Rebecca, please believe me when I say this - the predominate trend I often see amongst the “New Atheists” is actually the reverse of what your stating.

They are essentially anti-authoritarian Cultural Libertarians who chaffe at any institution from putting a limitation on their freedom. That includes the State.

Addenum: In fact, if any of you bothered to take a closer look, there’s currently a bit of a “war” if you will going on between the “New Atheists” and that wing of atheism that subscribes to the so-called “Social Justice Warrior” credo.

The “SJW” branch aligns quite well with what people might identify as Progressive politics - so these are all the Gender Studies/Feminism/Post-Colonial /etc.etc.etc.

For a humorous example of what an SJW is → youtube.com/watch?v=CtL5bOK8EAI

The “Cultural Libertarian” wing however has labeled the SJW as “Regressives” for their attempts to limit freedom of speech in favor of so-called “new idols.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m starting to think that what places like CAF, Ummah.org, and all the other little pockets on the internet really need are less philosophers and a lot more anthropologists.

Rebecca, please believe me when I say this - the predominate trend I often see amongst the “New Atheists” is actually the reverse of what your stating.

They are essentially anti-authoritarian Cultural Libertarians who chaffe at any institution from putting a limitation on their freedom. That includes the State.

While expecting the state to enforce their idea of freedom, which includes, a society that is “free” from religion. Communism “liberates” societies from religion.

 

[TheAtheist]

While expecting the state to enforce their idea of freedom, which includes, a society that is “free” from religion. Communism “liberates” societies from religion.

It depends on how one interprets the phrase “free from religion.”

If your thinking that they are all somehow conspiring to “ghettoize” any person who holds a religious sentiment ie: “Off to the Gulag,” than I can’t agree with you.

But what bothers them, what really really really bothers them (its rather comical from my perspective actually) is a situation more like the Mohammed Cartoon controversey.

From their perspective, it seems like the Secular Media is unwilling to engage in the same sort of debate/criticism that the do with other types of ideas vis-a-vis Islam.

Ie: “Why have they “internalized the fatwa”?” to use a popular phrase.

It leads to a greater question about why religious ideas shouldn’t come under greater scrutiny.

In other words, this particular group feels like religion (but most specifically Islam) essentially gets a “pass” in the public square/marketplace of ideas.

For the free speech advocate, this is an anathema.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It depends on how one interprets the phrase “free from religion.”

If your thinking that they are all somehow conspiring to “ghettoize” any person who holds a religious sentiment ie: “Off to the Gulag,” than I can’t agree with you.

But what bothers them, what really really really bothers them (its rather comical from my perspective actually) is a situation more like the Mohammed Cartoon controversey.

From their perspective, it seems like the Secular Media is unwilling to engage in the same sort of debate/criticism that the do with other types of ideas vis-a-vis Islam.

Ie: “Why have they “internalized the fatwa”?” to use a popular phrase.

It leads to a greater question about why religious ideas shouldn’t come under greater scrutiny.

In other words, this particular group feels like religion (but most specifically Islam) essentially gets a “pass” in the public square/marketplace of ideas.

For the free speech advocate, this is an anathema.

As was said, no one would make a cartoon of Moses, in an effort to ridicule Judaism. Not only because of the obvious anti-semitism outcry that would occur, but because the instigators know there wouldn’t be high publicity from such a stunt. Most people would go, meh.

Islam is a low hanging fruit. You make fun of Muhammed, you get a public and disproportionate reaction. Much more rewarding than, meh, or risking people thinking to themselves something along the lines of “skinhead weirdos”. Now, being anti-Islamic puts you at risk of being aligned to a certain wealthy man who thinks he’s a politician.

It’s like siblings trying to get a charge out of each other, only to point fingers and say it wasn’t me that started it!

There are other methods that can be used, that are mature and civil.