Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: why don't atheists typically reject secular values derived from religion?

[tonyrey]

I honestly think that a lot of these secular values that were derived from religion could just as easily be said to be derived from philosophy. Jesus wasn’t the first person to advocate the golden rule.

He was the first to tell us to love our enemies!

 

[larkin31]

He was the first to tell us to love our enemies!

You have no idea if this claim is true. We have no idea who “was the first” to articulate this idea.

 

[tonyrey]

You have no idea if this claim is true. We have no idea who “was the first” to articulate this idea.

The onus is on you to prove otherwise. If you cannot do so your objection is groundless.
You are allowing your anti-Christian prejudice to reject my claim without providing a reasonable alternative. It is well documented that many Christians followed the example of their Master whereas there is no evidence whatsoever that non-Christians did so.

 

[larkin31]

The onus is on you to prove otherwise. If you cannot do so your objection is groundless.
You are allowing your anti-Christian prejudice to reject my claim without providing a reasonable alternative. It is well documented that many Christians followed the example of their Master whereas there is no evidence whatsoever that non-Christians did so.

You totally miss my point. You are making a “first” claim about a historical fact about a time when we have very little documentation of what people said or wrote.

To claim that Jesus was the first in human history to suggest that we love our enemies is a spurious, unsupportable claim.

This is like claiming that Jesus was the first to say that those who sin themselves should not be so earnest in the condemning others who sin also (the mote story). We have no idea who may or may not have had that idea a thousand years before Jesus. It is hardly unique or profound (the idea of not being a moral uncharitable hypocrite). Likewise with showing charity towards one’s enemies. This is not a profoundly original idea. And you have no idea who said or thought this first in the history of the planet. Most history was unrecorded, unpreserved.

You seem to be of the rhetorical frame of mind that because you declare it, therefore it is.

 

[inocente]

You haven’t explained why any particular interpretation of the Bible should be regarded as the true one.

Hang on, you haven’t explained why your particular interpretation (basis of civilization etc.) of the Bible should be regarded as the true one.

 

[tonyrey]

You totally miss my point. You are making a “first” claim about a historical fact about a time when we have very little documentation of what people said or wrote.

Not only is there an abundance of writings from the first century CE but documents are not the sole form of historical evidence…

To claim that Jesus was the first in human history to suggest that we love our enemies is a spurious, unsupportable claim. This is like claiming that Jesus was the first to say that those who sin themselves should not be so earnest in the condemning others who sin also (the mote story). We have no idea who may or may not have had that idea a thousand years before Jesus. It is hardly unique or profound (the idea of not being a moral uncharitable hypocrite). Likewise with showing charity towards one’s enemies. This is not a profoundly original idea.

It is not a question of simply showing charity towards one’s enemies but of **forgiving **them - and if necessary sacrificing your life for them. It is significant that you attempt (in vain!) to dilute and downgrade Christ’s teaching by describing it in negative terms - “not being a moral uncharitable hypocrite” - which is a travesty of the truth. You distort His message of unselfish love with your own negative, cynical view of human nature. No wonder you reject Christianity lock, stock and barrel! (to change the OP’s metaphor).

And you have no idea who said or thought this first in the history of the planet. Most history was unrecorded, unpreserved.

In Rome and Jerusalem in the first century CE? You are obviously unaware of the archaeological evidence for the truth of the New Testament and its concordance with established facts about Roman and Jewish society, beliefs and customs. It is easy to make sweeping statements but historians are not so ignorant as you claim. You may think exegesis - like history is bunk - but you are mistaken…

 

[tonyrey]

Hang on, you haven’t explained why your particular interpretation (basis of civilization etc.) of the Bible should be regarded as the true one.

It is not my interpretation but the consensus of opinion among scholars that the Christian heritage has been a major factor in the development of moral and political principles and values throughout the world which culminated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. If you disagree the onus is on you to provide an alternative explanation of the origin of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity for all mankind.

 

[inocente]

It is not my interpretation but the consensus of opinion among scholars that the Christian heritage has been a major factor in the development of moral and political principles and values throughout the world which culminated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. If you disagree the onus is on you to provide an alternative explanation of the origin of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity for all mankind.

I think the modern world is an accumulation of many strands of thought from different traditions, and morally it only leads to conflict if we try to pick our own tradition as top dog.

So I’m deliriously happy with you saying “has been a major factor” instead of “the basis of modern civilization” as that gives every tradition wiggle-room to say the same without forcing any absolutes on others.

 

[tonyrey]

I think the modern world is an accumulation of many strands of thought from different traditions, and morally it only leads to conflict if we try to pick our own tradition as top dog.

The subject is not the “modern world” or “tradition”.

So I’m deliriously happy with you saying “has been a major factor” instead of “the basis of modern civilization” as that gives every tradition wiggle-room to say the same without forcing any absolutes on others.

You may not be quite so happy when I point out that the** moral** basis of modern civilisation is belief in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity for every person who exists throughout the world - and even throughout the entire universe… I’m interested to discover how how you wiggle your way out of that one! Perhaps you reject those principles? Perhaps you deny that Jesus was aware of them, accepted them and put them into practice? Where else did they originate?

It is not a matter of our religion being the top dog because that view would infringe those very principles! (Other religions may well have values we have neglected or failed to put into practice.) It is a matter of our religion being based on the teaching of the Son of God - a view held by those who are authentic Baptists…

Whether you reject the divinity of Christ or not it remains a fact that His teaching is that what we do to others, regardless of their sex, religion or race, we do to Him. If you also reject that you are certainly throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[inocente]

You may not be quite so happy when I point out that the** moral** basis of modern civilisation is belief in the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity for every person who exists throughout the world - and even throughout the entire universe… I’m interested to discover how how you wiggle your way out of that one!

Jesus taught liberty from sin, not civil liberty. He died for our sins, not to wave flags.

It is not a matter of our religion being the top dog because that view would infringe those very principles! (Other religions may well have values we have neglected or failed to put into practice.) It is a matter of our religion being based on the teaching of the Son of God - a view held by those who are authentic Baptists…

Now a bit lost as to what you’re stating, and apparently “authentic Baptists” don’t have the liberty to disagree with you.

 

[tonyrey]

You may not be quite so happy when I point out that the* moral***

Jesus liberated us from** every type of evil **and condemned those who curtailed the liberty of the poor. He died for us not our sins…

It is not a matter of our religion being the top dog because that view would infringe those very principles! (Other religions may well have values we have neglected or failed to put into practice.) It is a matter of our religion being based on the teaching of the Son of God - a view held by those who are authentic Baptists…

Now a bit lost as to what you’re stating, and apparently “authentic Baptists” don’t have the liberty to disagree with you.

Authentic Baptists don’t have the liberty to reject the divinity of Christ if they are to remain authentic…

 

[inocente]

He died for us not our sins…

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. - 1 Cor 15:3-5 NIV

Authentic Baptists don’t have the liberty to reject the divinity of Christ if they are to remain authentic…

Nor would they want to, but everything Jesus taught relates to God in exactly the way the modern secular concept of liberty doesn’t. The word’s the same but the entire basis differs.

You’re the one trying to turn Christ into a secular philosopher with your olde French slogan. Authentic Baptists are underwhelmed.

 

[tonyrey]

            *

He died for us

not our sins…
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. - 1 Cor 15:3-5 NIVYour literal interpretation is misguided. St Paul means Christ died for us and He did so by taking on the burden of our sins.

Authentic Baptists don’t have the liberty to reject the divinity of Christ if they are to remain authentic…

Nor would they want to, but everything Jesus taught relates to God in exactly the way the modern secular concept of liberty doesn’t. The word’s the same but the entire basis differs.
Liberty presupposes free will. It is nonsense to apply the principle of liberty to biological machines! And from what do you derive free will? It is significant that you have singled out liberty and ignored equality and fraternity - which are outstanding features of Christ’s teaching that we all have the same Father and are all equal in His sight.

You’re the one trying to turn Christ into a secular philosopher with your olde French slogan.

You’re the one trying to claim Christ’s teaching is not the basis of the beliefs and values of every civilised person without being able to explain where they originated. How could He be a secular philosopher merely because the French invented a slogan based on the truths He gave to His followers and handed down by His Church? Are you saying belief in human rights has nothing to do with Christ’s teaching? That He confined His precepts to individual spirituality with no social implications? That He was not concerned about social justice?

 

[inocente]

Your literal interpretation is misguided. St Paul means Christ died for us and He did so by taking on the burden of our sins.

I didn’t interpret, just quoted scripture.

Liberty presupposes free will. It is nonsense to apply the principle of liberty to biological machines! And from what do you derive free will? It is significant that you have singled out liberty and ignored equality and fraternity - which are outstanding features of Christ’s teaching that we all have the same Father and are all equal in His sight.

Free will didn’t magically appear as a result of the teaching of Jesus. I singled out liberty to show that the modern secular concept doesn’t relate to God, and without that your theory fails. You can’t just try to keep going with what’s left, you would have to revise your hypothesis.

In any event, the modern secular concepts of equality and fraternity don’t relate to God either.

You’re the one trying to claim Christ’s teaching is not the basis of the beliefs and values of every civilised person without being able to explain where they originated.

You’re the one positing a single modern civilization based on the teaching of Jesus. It may look like a single civilization from your armchair, but travel around and you won’t find it, except to the extent of secular globalization bringing the dubious joys of Coca Cola and jeans. For us Jesus contributed greatly, for others no.

The only folk who might be convinced by your argument are uncritical feel-good Christians, the rest of the world is rigorously unimpressed.

 

[tonyrey]

*Your literal interpretation is misguided…St Paul means Christ died for us and He did so by taking on the burden of our sinsQUOTE]I didn’t interpret, just quoted scripture.
*

Quotations from Scripture have produced thousands of sects…

Liberty presupposes free will. It is nonsense to apply the principle of liberty to biological machines! And from what do you derive free will? It is significant that you have singled out liberty and ignored equality and fraternity - which are outstanding features of Christ’s teaching that we all have the same Father and are all equal in His sight.

Free will didn’t magically appear as a result of the teaching of Jesus.

I haven’t stated that it did!

I singled out liberty to show that the modern secular concept doesn’t relate to God, and without that your theory fails. You can’t just try to keep going with what’s left, you would have to revise your hypothesis.

Your theory that liberty does not presuppose free will fails. Furthermore Jewish women and children did not have liberty before Jesus treated them as equals. It was a man’s world in every respect.

In any event, the modern secular concepts of equality and fraternity don’t relate to God either.

In that case you must be a Unitarian! You obviously don’t acknowledge the three Persons in the Blessed Trinity…

You’re the one trying to claim Christ’s teaching is not the basis of the beliefs and values of every civilised person without being able to explain where they originated.

You’re the one positing a single modern civilization based on the teaching of Jesus. It may look like a single civilization from your armchair, but travel around and you won’t find it, except to the extent of secular globalization bringing the dubious joys of Coca Cola and jeans. For us Jesus contributed greatly, for others no.

Coke and jeans may be the most significant aspects of modern civilisation in your opinion but I doubt whether most people would agree with you… I specifically referred to the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

The only folk who might be convinced by your argument are uncritical feel-good Christians, the rest of the world is rigorously unimpressed.

Tell that to the people in Libya and other countries - especially the women…

 

[inocente]

Quotations from Scripture have produced thousands of sects…

There nothing relevant in your last post for me to respond to. You’re the only person I know of in the history of humankind who says the godless French revolution slogan, the secular UDHR and modern secular civilization are based on the teaching of Jesus. You’ve not offered a shred of evidence and just make increasingly wild assertions.

There isn’t just one modern civilization except perhaps through the tunnel vision of some anglophiles. In secular civilizations concepts don’t rely on God. The UDHR isn’t founded on nor does it rely on any one system of belief. Yet from your armchair you seem to think I’m the one making wild assertions.

There’s the real world and the land of Oz, and I’m no longer sure which you’re posting from.

 

[tonyrey]

There nothing relevant in your last post for me to respond to.

That is a convenient evasion of the points I have made.

You’re the only person I know of in the history of humankind who says the godless French revolution slogan, the secular UDHR and modern secular civilization are based on the teaching of Jesus.

A complete distortion of my views!

There isn’t just one modern civilization except perhaps through the tunnel vision of some anglophiles. In secular civilizations concepts don’t rely on God. The UDHR isn’t founded on nor does it rely on any one system of belief. Yet from your armchair you seem to think I’m the one making wild assertions.

What is the logical basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

There’s the real world and the land of Oz, and I’m no longer sure which you’re posting from.

That is mere invective which does nothing to further your argument. In fact it weakens it when taken in conjunction with your failure to respond to the following:

1. Liberty presupposes free will. It is nonsense to apply the principle of liberty to biological machines!

2.Liberty, equality and fraternity are outstanding features of Christ’s teaching that we all have the same Father, are all equal in His sight and are responsible for our thoughts, decisions and actions.

1. Jewish women and children did not have liberty before Jesus treated them as equals. It was a man’s world in every respect.

In any event, the modern secular concepts of equality and fraternity don’t relate to God either.

In that case you must be a Unitarian! You obviously don’t acknowledge the three Persons in the Blessed Trinity…

                                                  5.

The only folk who might be convinced by your argument are uncritical feel-good Christians, the rest of the world is rigorously unimpressed.

          Tell that to the oppressed people in Libya and other countries - especially the women. In which countries are human rights** officially** rejected?

Where did the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity originate?

You obviously underestimate the power of Christ’s teaching…

 

[Windfish]

Any takers?

They will. Over time, atheism always leads to nihilism.

 

[inocente]

That is a convenient evasion of the points I have made.

Evasion would only be possible if your points were based on evidence.

A complete distortion of my views!

In what way dude? Did you not then say that the godless French revolution slogan, the secular UDHR and modern secular civilization are based on the teaching of Jesus?

What is the logical basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

Ask an atheist, Hindu, Buddhist. Will they agree with your logical basis? Almost certainly not.

*1. Liberty presupposes free will. It is nonsense to apply the principle of liberty to biological machines!

2.Liberty, equality and fraternity are outstanding features of Christ’s teaching that we all have the same Father, are all equal in His sight and are responsible for our thoughts, decisions and actions.

1. Jewish women and children did not have liberty before Jesus treated them as equals. It was a man’s world in every respect.

1. In that case you must be a Unitarian! You obviously don’t acknowledge the three Persons in the Blessed Trinity…

1. Tell that to the oppressed people in Libya and other countries - especially the women. In which countries are human rights** officially*** rejected?

1. You crossed threads, it’s irrelevant here.
2. You’ve not given any evidence that these are the outstanding features of Christ’s teaching, nor that they can’t be arrived at by a different logic.
3. Once again Jews cite Adam and Eve, our sole parents, as the source of equality. Plus you’ve not given any evidence that no one before Jesus treated women and children equally, or that everyone after who heard His teaching did.
4. See, this is why I didn’t respond before. I pointed out that the modern secular concepts of your liberty, equality and fraternity don’t relate to God and somehow you think that’s my personal belief. Look up the word secular – by definition for everyone else in the world it means not connected with religion. This isn’t just me, to everyone else in the world apart from your good self the secular concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity don’t relate to God.
5. Why these flights of fancy? To Muslims Jesus is a healer, a mortal prophet through whom God revealed meekness and love but who did not die to atone for our sins. Do Muslims see Jesus as a source of liberty, do you have evidence? In any event, did no people rise up against oppressive mad dictators before hearing of Jesus?

You obviously underestimate the power of Christ’s teaching…

Christ is God, not an über-philosopher. Your case is based on way too much theorizing and way too little evidence.

 

[tonyrey]

Evasion would only be possible if your points were based on evidence.

You are begging the question.

In what way dude? Did you not then say that the godless French revolution slogan, the secular UDHR and modern secular civilization are based on the teaching of Jesus?

No, pal!

Ask an atheist, Hindu, Buddhist. Will they agree with your logical basis? Almost certainly not.

The truth is not based on opinions.

1. You crossed threads, it’s irrelevant here.

I don’t know what you mean.

1. You’ve not given any evidence that these are the outstanding features of Christ’s teaching…

Can you p(name removed by moderator)oint any which are more fundamental?

…nor that they can’t be arrived at by a different logic.

The onus is on you to prove that they can - and have been…

1. Once again Jews cite Adam and Eve, our sole parents, as the source of equality.

In a patriarchal society?!

Plus you’ve not given any evidence that no one before Jesus treated women and children equally…

It is absurd to ask me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to cite a source proving that another person had done so.

…or that everyone after who heard His teaching did.

That is completely irrelevant.

1. See, this is why I didn’t respond before. I pointed out that the modern secular concepts of your liberty, equality and fraternity don’t relate to God and somehow you think that’s my personal belief.
   Look up the word secular – by definition for everyone else in the world it means not connected with religion. This isn’t just me, to everyone else in the world apart from your good self the secular concepts of liberty, equality and fraternity don’t relate to God.

This is sheer nonsense. Many secular concepts can and do have a religious origin.

1. Why these flights of fancy? To Muslims Jesus is a healer, a mortal prophet through whom God revealed meekness and love but who did not die to atone for our sins. Do Muslims see Jesus as a source of liberty, do you have evidence?

People’s beliefs and disbeliefs do not determine the truth.

In any event, did no people rise up against oppressive mad dictators before hearing of Jesus?

This is completely irrelevant.

Christ is God, not an über-philosopher. Your case is based on way too much.

An argumentum ad hominem.