6 ms·

The differences between those 'last few prophets' are major. You could say the same thing about Mormonism. Further, Jews, Muslims, and Christians are not monoli

The differences between those 'last few prophets' are major. You could say the same thing about Mormonism. Further, Jews, Muslims, and Christians are not monoliths in and of themselves. There are vast divides within those groups. I do wish we would all get along better though. Despite the differences between the various Abrahamic faiths, we have far similar values with each other than with atheists.

jleyank 4y ago
Unfortunately, that's true in both the positive and negative sense, as atheists have no $GOD to kill for.
- rmatt2000 4y ago
  Mao and Stalin might disagree.
  - nautilius 4y ago
    Would they? What's that god they killed for?
    - getcrunk 4y ago
      I think the point was trying to make is that having a god is ultimately irrelevant to being an evil murderer
      - nautilius 4y ago
        No one claimed atheists cannot be murderers. But I have yet to learn of an atheist starting a crusade in the name of that god they don't believe in.
        forum_ghost 4y ago
        did mao and stalin believe in communism?
    - rhexs 4y ago
      The state?
      - jleyank 4y ago
        $RELIGIONS have the group, they state AND the $GOD get people motivated. They can promise the hereafter.
        JetAlone 4y ago
        The hereafter... I think even without believing in an afterlife in your religion, you can believe some idea or value transcends your own death. For example a person could say "I am okay with dying young in an atrocious urban conflict if it means that in the future we can start a socialist regime where everyone has food, health care and shelter provided by the state as it should have been for my family." It's not a promise of an afterlife, but it is a promise for something good existing after your life because of your willingness to take on death. And in that way, an ideology can inhabit tons of the psychological territory that religion often does.
      - nautilius 4y ago
        The state? Buildings and bureaucrats? Now that's a low bar for 'god'. That's it? There isn't more to it? That's what all the fuzz is about?
        forum_ghost 4y ago
        why are you so insecure about your atheism?
        JetAlone 4y ago
        I wouldn't immediately assume it's insecurity. I used to be an atheist for a good decade and a bit. I remember making fun of Christians in high school. You get to be edgy and the Christians start to feel real bad because you're making fun of what is their "silly sky daddy" to you. But the extra fun part is they're conditioned to be nice in response so it's like you get to sit on a tall branch and drop things on their head and you don't have to take so much flak from them. And if they do act out, you can call them a hypocrite and insult their faith because it clearly doesn't work. It feels like a fun game you can't lose, until one day things get too real and you discover in horror what you'd been doing.
    - TimTheTinker 4y ago
      Nationalist socialist ideology. It held itself up as the "true" alternative to Christian religion in particular. No need for a God - we can do it all ourselves. Perhaps because it saw Christians who were loyal first to God and then to the state as a threat to its plans for totalitarianism.
    - JetAlone 4y ago
      In the case of Mao and Stalin? That would be the idol of Ideological purity. It is presented as the one true ideal variant of humanistic utilitarianism, and conveniently because they are the glorious leader through whom it is to be enacted, they are basically the prophet of this god. It is an impersonal god, a "force" or natural economic/social principle whose pseudo-personhood emerges from collective humanity. It uses its adherents to oppress outsiders for resisting. It holds itself together by using its adherents to watch and keep each other in line. It callously punishes insiders to demonstrate that this god doesn't need any of the individual humans it supposedly serves, since they are so much like animals in the first place. Materialist don't get to make a smug escape from the stigma of "killing in the name of god". Anything you place at the top of your value hierarchy is, for all intents and purposes, your god. It's a little on the cheesy side but I think this clip from They Live illustrates simply the idolatrous place capital can take in our day-to-day lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8WttFoF3Og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8WttFoF3Og
      - nautilius 4y ago
        That's it? That's all your god has to offer? That's all your god is? An ideology? Bureaucrats and formalism? I feel betrayed! To you, god is indistinguishable for from this? How? Now, I am not a religion-apologist, but it seems to me you're selling god short, no? What about all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo? Here's Oxford: 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. Wow! Yeah! Thats's a god! But you're arguing that god is equivalent to formalism and bureaucracy?! Wow, what a disappointment!
        JetAlone 4y ago
        I wasn't saying that's what God is. I was saying that is what a person can try to make a god out of. I agree that bureaucracy and formalism makes for a disappointing god. That's the way the pharisees tended towards practicing.
  - smt88 4y ago
    Mao and Stalin didn't kill for religious reasons.
- tomohawk 4y ago
  - 1over137 4y ago
    But did they do these things because they were atheist? In the name of atheist philosophy? No. There's no causal link there. Contrast with say ISIS, where they do their evil because of (their interpretation of) their religion.
    - tomohawk 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - 1over137 4y ago
        >Conversely, where in atheism does it say to love your neighbor as yourself or anything similar? Nowhere. Why would it? We must have different definitions of atheism. It's merely the absence of belief in the existence of deities. It's not some kind of complete life philosophy.
nitrogen 4y ago
we have far similar values with each other than with atheists. I would describe the values of the altruistic modern atheism of people I know, which has a lot in common with Christianity and Judaism at the big picture level, as "be good, do good." One needn't believe in God or gods to believe in good.
- powerslacker 4y ago
  Values concerning sexual purity, obscenity, drug use, the transcendence of the almighty God, the material and immaterial parts of mankind, and the complementary roles of men and women are inherent in Biblical teaching. Some of these can be present among atheists, and they may be regarded as good. The difference is these values (and more) are present and regarded as good in varying degrees in every Abrahamic religion. Sure there are atheists who are altruistic. But fundamentally there is little common ground, because an atheist does not believe in a divine being who is the source of all morality. The question I would ask an atheist is: what is good and who defines it?
  - jleyank 4y ago
    This gets into old, old discussions we had at school in the 70's. There are ethics, which are fundamental properties of humans, and morals, which are constructs built on top of ethics. Ethics are shared amongst humans - don't kill, try to help, raise the next generation, preserve the last generation. These are the default conditions picked by the evolutionary pressure that got us here. Morals, on the other hand, are constructs. Given by $GOD, constructed to understand why ethics exist, why there are certain trends that are shared - these were cited forming govts, etc. Not saying these are grounded in the definitions of language or sociology, merely that these kinds of discussions were everpresent when people get together with time to think. In this case, it was uni. In Ancient Greece, it was the marketplace. To try again, consider ethics things which are done and morality is an attempt to explain WHY they are done. Fear of consequence, desire to gain, justification, ...
  - nautilius 4y ago
    If the only thing keeping you from being a bad person (TM) is the threat of eternal damnation and suffering through some divine almighty being - how are you then not a bad person?
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Despite the differences between the various Abrahamic faiths, we have far similar values with each other than with atheists. The space of values within the Abrahamic faiths (which are more than Jews, Muslims, and Christians, though those are the largest groups), or even within any one of those three large Abrahamic faiths, is not significantly narrower than the space of values within all of humanity. Personally, I find that many of the people farthest from me in values are not only within the big Abrahamic tent with me, but also within the smaller tent of Western Christianity with me. (And I find that us vs. them appeals with “us” being Christianity, “Judeo-Christianity“, or Abrahamic religion [almost always intended to exclusively refer to the big 3], is a pretty good sign that someone is on that other side.)

jleyank 4y ago

Unfortunately, that's true in both the positive and negative sense, as atheists have no $GOD to kill for.

rmatt2000 4y ago
Mao and Stalin might disagree.
- nautilius 4y ago
  Would they? What's that god they killed for?
  - getcrunk 4y ago
    I think the point was trying to make is that having a god is ultimately irrelevant to being an evil murderer
    - nautilius 4y ago
      No one claimed atheists cannot be murderers. But I have yet to learn of an atheist starting a crusade in the name of that god they don't believe in.
      - forum_ghost 4y ago
        did mao and stalin believe in communism?
  - rhexs 4y ago
    The state?
    - jleyank 4y ago
      $RELIGIONS have the group, they state AND the $GOD get people motivated. They can promise the hereafter.
      - JetAlone 4y ago
        The hereafter... I think even without believing in an afterlife in your religion, you can believe some idea or value transcends your own death. For example a person could say "I am okay with dying young in an atrocious urban conflict if it means that in the future we can start a socialist regime where everyone has food, health care and shelter provided by the state as it should have been for my family." It's not a promise of an afterlife, but it is a promise for something good existing after your life because of your willingness to take on death. And in that way, an ideology can inhabit tons of the psychological territory that religion often does.
    - nautilius 4y ago
      The state? Buildings and bureaucrats? Now that's a low bar for 'god'. That's it? There isn't more to it? That's what all the fuzz is about?
      - forum_ghost 4y ago
        why are you so insecure about your atheism?
        JetAlone 4y ago
        I wouldn't immediately assume it's insecurity. I used to be an atheist for a good decade and a bit. I remember making fun of Christians in high school. You get to be edgy and the Christians start to feel real bad because you're making fun of what is their "silly sky daddy" to you. But the extra fun part is they're conditioned to be nice in response so it's like you get to sit on a tall branch and drop things on their head and you don't have to take so much flak from them. And if they do act out, you can call them a hypocrite and insult their faith because it clearly doesn't work. It feels like a fun game you can't lose, until one day things get too real and you discover in horror what you'd been doing.
  - TimTheTinker 4y ago
    Nationalist socialist ideology. It held itself up as the "true" alternative to Christian religion in particular. No need for a God - we can do it all ourselves. Perhaps because it saw Christians who were loyal first to God and then to the state as a threat to its plans for totalitarianism.
  - JetAlone 4y ago
    In the case of Mao and Stalin? That would be the idol of Ideological purity. It is presented as the one true ideal variant of humanistic utilitarianism, and conveniently because they are the glorious leader through whom it is to be enacted, they are basically the prophet of this god. It is an impersonal god, a "force" or natural economic/social principle whose pseudo-personhood emerges from collective humanity. It uses its adherents to oppress outsiders for resisting. It holds itself together by using its adherents to watch and keep each other in line. It callously punishes insiders to demonstrate that this god doesn't need any of the individual humans it supposedly serves, since they are so much like animals in the first place. Materialist don't get to make a smug escape from the stigma of "killing in the name of god". Anything you place at the top of your value hierarchy is, for all intents and purposes, your god. It's a little on the cheesy side but I think this clip from They Live illustrates simply the idolatrous place capital can take in our day-to-day lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8WttFoF3Og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8WttFoF3Og
    - nautilius 4y ago
      That's it? That's all your god has to offer? That's all your god is? An ideology? Bureaucrats and formalism? I feel betrayed! To you, god is indistinguishable for from this? How? Now, I am not a religion-apologist, but it seems to me you're selling god short, no? What about all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo? Here's Oxford: 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. Wow! Yeah! Thats's a god! But you're arguing that god is equivalent to formalism and bureaucracy?! Wow, what a disappointment!
      - JetAlone 4y ago
        I wasn't saying that's what God is. I was saying that is what a person can try to make a god out of. I agree that bureaucracy and formalism makes for a disappointing god. That's the way the pharisees tended towards practicing.
- smt88 4y ago
  Mao and Stalin didn't kill for religious reasons.
tomohawk 4y ago
- 1over137 4y ago
  But did they do these things because they were atheist? In the name of atheist philosophy? No. There's no causal link there. Contrast with say ISIS, where they do their evil because of (their interpretation of) their religion.
  - tomohawk 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - 1over137 4y ago
      >Conversely, where in atheism does it say to love your neighbor as yourself or anything similar? Nowhere. Why would it? We must have different definitions of atheism. It's merely the absence of belief in the existence of deities. It's not some kind of complete life philosophy.

nitrogen 4y ago

we have far similar values with each other than with atheists. I would describe the values of the altruistic modern atheism of people I know, which has a lot in common with Christianity and Judaism at the big picture level, as "be good, do good." One needn't believe in God or gods to believe in good.

powerslacker 4y ago
Values concerning sexual purity, obscenity, drug use, the transcendence of the almighty God, the material and immaterial parts of mankind, and the complementary roles of men and women are inherent in Biblical teaching. Some of these can be present among atheists, and they may be regarded as good. The difference is these values (and more) are present and regarded as good in varying degrees in every Abrahamic religion. Sure there are atheists who are altruistic. But fundamentally there is little common ground, because an atheist does not believe in a divine being who is the source of all morality. The question I would ask an atheist is: what is good and who defines it?
- jleyank 4y ago
  This gets into old, old discussions we had at school in the 70's. There are ethics, which are fundamental properties of humans, and morals, which are constructs built on top of ethics. Ethics are shared amongst humans - don't kill, try to help, raise the next generation, preserve the last generation. These are the default conditions picked by the evolutionary pressure that got us here. Morals, on the other hand, are constructs. Given by $GOD, constructed to understand why ethics exist, why there are certain trends that are shared - these were cited forming govts, etc. Not saying these are grounded in the definitions of language or sociology, merely that these kinds of discussions were everpresent when people get together with time to think. In this case, it was uni. In Ancient Greece, it was the marketplace. To try again, consider ethics things which are done and morality is an attempt to explain WHY they are done. Fear of consequence, desire to gain, justification, ...
- nautilius 4y ago
  If the only thing keeping you from being a bad person (TM) is the threat of eternal damnation and suffering through some divine almighty being - how are you then not a bad person?

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Despite the differences between the various Abrahamic faiths, we have far similar values with each other than with atheists. The space of values within the Abrahamic faiths (which are more than Jews, Muslims, and Christians, though those are the largest groups), or even within any one of those three large Abrahamic faiths, is not significantly narrower than the space of values within all of humanity. Personally, I find that many of the people farthest from me in values are not only within the big Abrahamic tent with me, but also within the smaller tent of Western Christianity with me. (And I find that us vs. them appeals with “us” being Christianity, “Judeo-Christianity“, or Abrahamic religion [almost always intended to exclusively refer to the big 3], is a pretty good sign that someone is on that other side.)