Many atheists are excellent, but atheism itself is hurting the West

[blackbird]

This is a followup to a topic Conrad Black wrote recently about the threat to civilization represented by atheism.  He responds to his critics and detractors.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-i-put-this-as-simply-as-possible-many-atheists-are-excellent-but-atheism-itself-is-hurting-the-west

In part he says:

"

I did not suggest that the probable existence of a supernatural intelligence required anyone to plunge into religious practice or worship of any kind. That is a matter of taste and people should do what works for them and avoid what doesn’t. I did not imply for an instant that those who deny the probability of a supernatural intelligence, whom I defined for these purposes as atheists, were incapable of being honest and decent people. Of course, in our society, most people, including most atheists, are reasonably honest and decent and get through their lives without horrible outbursts of sociopathic behaviour. I did write that those atheists who purport to espouse the Judeo-Christian life without admitting the probability of some supernatural force are essentially enjoying the benefits of Judeo-Christian civilization while denying even the least onerous definition of its basic tenets. Thus do schism and hypocrisy raise their hoary heads.

As atheists renounce the roots of our civilization, they are troublesome passengers, and are apt to be less integral defenders of the West in time of challenge. They often dissent so uniformly and strenuously from any theistic notions that they have effectively established a third force that enjoys the society Judeo-Christianity has created while despising Judeo-Christianity and also purporting, generally, to despise the succession of dangerous adversaries that have threatened Judeo-Christianity, including Nazism, international Communism, and radical Islam. "

My own immediate thought is that atheism creates a kind of vacuum leaving one in a weakened state intellectually and more vulnerable to ideologies or false religions which basically are a threat to civilization as we know it.

[Boges]

Seems Atheism had drawn the ire of people who think rejecting the cultural religious practices of visible minorities is racist. 

John Oliver looked at the French Elections and was super critical of National Front's Anti-Immigration policy. But part of their platform is banning any visible forms of religious expression. 

It's an interesting paradox where you have left-wing people so focused on tolerance they embrace regressive religious elements and right wingers who reject religion. Strange times indeed. 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

Conrad's precious religion didn't seem to stop him from becoming a bigtime fraudster landing him in prison.

Religion is about controlling people's morality through fear & lies of myth.  Humans are capable of creating a better morality using logic & reason instead of fear and myth.  A rejection of religious myth & divine control and embracing knowledge through reason is what led to the Enlightenment, an explosion of knowledge in the West and what led to the rejection of the divine right of kings and philosophers like John Locke, Rousseau etc. who helped build our modern liberal democracies and human rights.

It's not that Christianity or religions are universally bad, it's that we can take the good aspects we value from these moral systems and reject what we don't without an irrational fear or God striking us down or sending us to hell, or preacher's threatening us with this.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Moonlight Graham

[kimmy]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

My own immediate thought is that atheism creates a kind of vacuum leaving one in a weakened state intellectually and more vulnerable to ideologies or false religions which basically are a threat to civilization as we know it.

My thought is the opposite... by and large atheists are more skeptical and resistant to ideas that don't have a reasonable and rational basis.  That's not necessarily true of all non-religious people, people who say "uh, spiritual but not religious" (or "uh, Christian, I guess?" people) when talking about their religious views--  such people might be inclined to drift from one type of hokum to the next. But choosing atheism, as opposed to "uh, spiritual but not religious" is a decision that you're done with hokum.

I also disagree with the premise that filling peoples' heads with Jesus makes them less vulnerable to ideas that are a threat to our civilization. Someone once said "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Meaning, people can be manipulated through patriotism and religion to rally behind terrible ideas. Worked for Hitler.  I bet every Middle East strong-man tells his citizens that Allah is on his side too. And without getting into a debate over Trump, I think that at the very least we can agree that the Steve Bannon/Breitbart vision of America also leans heavily on the pillars of patriotism and religion and this seems to be what Mr Black longs for as well.

 -k

[kimmy]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

It's an interesting paradox where you have left-wing people so focused on tolerance they embrace regressive religious elements and right wingers who reject religion.

It has been interesting to see outspoken atheists like Bill Maher and Sam Harris become popular with "the right" because they're willing to pull no punches in regards to Islam, while many liberals have turned against Harris because "he is racist because he did not love the Muslims."

 -k

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Conrad's precious religion didn't seem to stop him from becoming a bigtime fraudster landing him in prison.

To be fair to Black, his conviction was overturned. Except for the obstruction charge, but that one was kind of wierd in that:

 The obstruction count related to Black and his chauffeur removing boxes of documents from Hollinger offices in Toronto on June 9, 2005, contrary to a court order that prohibited removal.^[11] Black contested the obstruction count on the grounds that he was obeying an eviction notice,^[12] that he knew he was being filmed because he had installed the security cameras which filmed him, that he had already provided copies of every document prosecutors had asked for, and that not a single commercially relevant document in those boxes was not already possessed by prosecutors.^[8]

[Goddess]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

 

I did not suggest that the probable existence of a supernatural intelligence required anyone to plunge into religious practice or worship of any kind. That is a matter of taste and people should do what works for them and avoid what doesn’t. I did not imply for an instant that those who deny the probability of a supernatural intelligence, whom I defined for these purposes as atheists, were incapable of being honest and decent people. Of course, in our society, most people, including most atheists, are reasonably honest and decent and get through their lives without horrible outbursts of sociopathic behaviour. I did write that those atheists who purport to espouse the Judeo-Christian life without admitting the probability of some supernatural force are essentially enjoying the benefits of Judeo-Christian civilization while denying even the least onerous definition of its basic tenets. Thus do schism and hypocrisy raise their hoary heads.

As atheists renounce the roots of our civilization, they are troublesome passengers, and are apt to be less integral defenders of the West in time of challenge. They often dissent so uniformly and strenuously from any theistic notions that they have effectively established a third force that enjoys the society Judeo-Christianity has created while despising Judeo-Christianity and also purporting, generally, to despise the succession of dangerous adversaries that have threatened Judeo-Christianity, including Nazism, international Communism, and radical Islam. "

My own immediate thought is that atheism creates a kind of vacuum leaving one in a weakened state intellectually and more vulnerable to ideologies or false religions which basically are a threat to civilization as we know it.

I couldn't disagree more.

Quote

 

You live in a society that has well developed rules and laws that came from centuries of secular law and government. You would be hard pressed to find much in our current laws that was directly related to The Decalogue or the 613 commandments found in the Old Testament. Those were laws and rules as foreign to us today as the Hopi moral code is to the U.S. legal code. They are hardly related.

Little if any of your day-to-day behavior is governed by anything you can find in a holy book. Be kind to each other, is a pretty universal value. Most cultures have some version of that. It existed long before holy books were written. It did not come from any god.

If we received our morality from god or religion, then we would expect to see higher morality among the most religious and godly societies. A simple look at today’s societies shows that is not the case. 

Compare our religious society to France, Germany, Sweden, Japan or any number of other developed countries, and you see that high rates of atheism or non-religiosity are associated with low rates of all these “moral” problems.

Western morality began with the enlightenment about 500 years ago. The enlightenment was the first time that Europeans started separating religion from morality. Through the last few centuries, Western Civilization has developed a code of morality that is not dependent on any religion, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to the United Nations Charter, to the International Court of Justice, The Geneva Convention on War, and much more. These institutions and laws make no reference to gods or religion and are often agreed to by countries whose citizens have radically different religions.

Here is something to consider. No major religion on earth condemned slavery until the enlightenment came along to condemn it. All the major religions claim that women are inferior to men. None thought that women had a role to play in political life and rarely in religious life. Most churches still believe that only men may lead. Many major religions espoused “Peace on Earth” but were quick to start huge devastating Crusades against one another. Christians who espoused Christian morality in the 1500’s spent decades killing one another across Europe in the 30 years war. Millions died in the name of a god. Not much morality there.

Where do we get our morality? From the constant development of our culture. From the evolution of laws and guidelines that help us create a peaceful and prosperous society. We are who create our morality and we pass it down to our children and grandchildren.

 

http://kidswithoutgod.com/teens/ask/where-do-atheists-get-their-morality/

 

 

[kimmy]

Conrad Black's comments...

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

I did write that those atheists who purport to espouse the Judeo-Christian life without admitting the probability of some supernatural force are essentially enjoying the benefits of Judeo-Christian civilization while denying even the least onerous definition of its basic tenets. Thus do schism and hypocrisy raise their hoary heads.

This is nonsense. We don't have to worship Jesus to recognize that we have a great society that is worth protecting. There's no hypocrisy.

To use an analogy... much of the foundation of physics as it exists today was built on assumptions that turned out to be wrong-- time is constant, lines are straight, mass is constant, measurements are absolute-- none of those things are actually true.  And yet much of the work that was done earlier remains valuable. Newton's laws of motion weren't wrong, they were simply a special case of a larger set of more universal laws.  Saying that we're hypocrites for living in our current society without worshipping Jesus is like saying that we'd be hypocrites for using Newton's laws of motion without first renouncing Einstein's relativity.

And the notion that our society is "Judeo-Christian life" is pretty dubious.  For most of history, "Judeo-Christian civilization" was very different from the society we live in.  I think our current society is built upon ideas that evolved over centuries in Great Britain, and influenced heavily by events in France and the United States as well. Recall that once upon a time in England, "God made me your King, and I can do whatever the hell I want!" was their version of a "Judeo-Christian society".  Lands ruled by other Christian monarchies or by the Holy Roman Empire had their own versions of "Judeo-Christian society".

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

As atheists renounce the roots of our civilization, they are troublesome passengers, and are apt to be less integral defenders of the West in time of challenge. They often dissent so uniformly and strenuously from any theistic notions that they have effectively established a third force that enjoys the society Judeo-Christianity has created while despising Judeo-Christianity and also purporting, generally, to despise the succession of dangerous adversaries that have threatened Judeo-Christianity, including Nazism, international Communism, and radical Islam. "

And this is also stupid.

Principles that atheists fight for-- like keeping religion out of classrooms and government-- are for the benefit of everybody. The rules that prevent schools from making kids recite the Lord's Prayer in class each morning also prevent schools from imposing other religions on your kids.  An avid Christian might not see a problem with his kids having to recite the Lord's Prayer each morning, but I bet he'd be pretty upset if he found out that the teacher made his kids kneel down and pray to Mecca before class.

 -k

[Moonlight Graham]

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

My own immediate thought is that atheism creates a kind of vacuum leaving one in a weakened state intellectually and more vulnerable to ideologies or false religions which basically are a threat to civilization as we know it.

Atheism does create a vaccuum, you're right on that.  But it creates a strengthened state intellectually, not weakened, where they're free to use reason instead of superstition to base their moral compass on,.  While yes people are vulnerable to worse ideologies, they're also free to choose better ideologies, they're free from the shackles of dogma where they can choose (or not) to support things like LGBT rights, women's rights, contraception, and science ie: theories of evolution etc.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Moonlight Graham

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Conrad's precious religion didn't seem to stop him from becoming a bigtime fraudster landing him in prison.

Religion is about controlling people's morality through fear & lies of myth.  Humans are capable of creating a better morality using logic & reason instead of fear and myth.  A rejection of religious myth & divine control and embracing knowledge through reason is what led to the Enlightenment, an explosion of knowledge in the West and what led to the rejection of the divine right of kings and philosophers like John Locke, Rousseau etc. who helped build our modern liberal democracies and human rights.

It's not that Christianity or religions are universally bad, it's that we can take the good aspects we value from these moral systems and reject what we don't without an irrational fear or God striking us down or sending us to hell, or preacher's threatening us with this.

He may have been a nominal follower of his religion for part of his life.  I think he has come back to it in more recent times.  But I am not a fan of Romanism. However I can agree with much of what he said about these other matters affecting civilization.

I wouldn't classify him as a fraudster.  He was charged with five charges,  Four of them were withdrawn and he was convicted of a lesser one.  He completed his time in prison. 

He is not a fraudster.  He is an exceptional journalist.  He appears on the Vision channel occasionally, and write newspaper articles.  He wrote a large book (possibly while in prison) on the 250 year History of the United States.  Took me quite a while to read it but it was very good.  Mr. Black has a vast knowledge.  I don't think he has the thinking or character of a  fraudster as you portray him.  He paid his time and turned himself around long ago.  Leftists will differ because their usual attack is if they don't like his political views is to attack the messenger.   I dismiss that as evading the substance.

I am not advocating Conrad's religion, which I strongly disagree with.  But I agree with his diagnosis of society.   Logic and reason has never been a good guide of society or morality because everyone has a different idea of what that should mean. 

 

[Boges]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Atheism does create a vaccuum, you're right on that.  But it creates a strengthened state intellectually, not weakened, where they're free to use reason instead of superstition to base their moral compass on,.  While yes people are vulnerable to worse ideologies, they're also free to choose better ideologies, they're free from the shackles of dogma where they can choose (or not) to support things like LGBT rights, women's rights, contraception, and science ie: theories of evolution etc.

I think people that have faith structures can have nuanced opinions on things and concede there are elements of the Universe we just don't understand, but still have personal opinions on how what guides there own moral code. When the left defends Islam they depend on this. 

Also conversely there are probably lazy atheists that dismiss all people that hold to a belief in a higher power as an intellectual weakness and dismisses outright. Which itself is a very regressive ideology, even if they proclaim to believe in only "Science" or some similar platitude like that. 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Boges

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

You live in a society that has well developed rules and laws that came from centuries of secular law and government. You would be hard pressed to find much in our current laws that was directly related to The Decalogue or the 613 commandments found in the Old Testament. Those were laws and rules as foreign to us today as the Hopi moral code is to the U.S. legal code. They are hardly related.

 

 

The ten commandments have had an influence on laws of society in the several thousand years because most of them are considered as eternal commandments applicable to all ages.  As an example, Sunday as a day of rest is something that originated from our Judeo-Christian culture.  The other 613 commandments are not considered as applicable to christians or anyone today.  They were directed to the people of Israel at that particular time in history over 2000 years ago.  The western world was governed by the Holy Roman Empire for much of the past 1700 years.  Many countries were not democracies until recent centuries.  But the ideas in the bible such as thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, not defraud another person, are well established in the Judeo-Christian world.  The ideas of loving thy neighbour, treating slaves with fairness was a bible principle going back thousands of years.  Democracy evolved gradually.  The ideas of fairness as in the judicial system, the ideas of clemency, mercy, and giving people another chanced.  These are christian principles.  You find these principles in western or Jude-Christian countries more so than other countries that were often barbaric.  For example in some place in central and south America, human sacrifice was part of their system.  This was not the case in Judeo-Christian civilization.  Neither did Judeio-Christian civilization practice cannibalism which was a practice in some heathen tribes in jungles.  While there have been many wars and bad things that happened in history in the west as well and things were far from perfect,  the principles that we have today did evolve to an unknown extent from Judeo-Christian teachings.  Mjulitple wives were also common in many non-christian parts of the world.  Christian women are treated with respect.  Non-christian countries can still be terrible places for women.  In the case of divorce for instance, women in North America have many rights and laws provide for them.  This might not be true in third world non-christian nations.  Even our social services such as welfare is generous compared with non-christian nations where there might be nothing.  You have to look at all spheres of life to see what influence of Judeo-Christian civiliation.   You have to admit the Judeo-Christian nations are far more prosperous and stable than countries in other parts of world.  They have coup de tat to overthrow governments, they have dictatorships, and the a lot of people live in poverty in these non christian countries.

Edited April 17, 2017 by blackbird

[kimmy]

22 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Leftists will differ because their usual attack is if they don't like his political views is to attack the messenger.   I dismiss that as evading the substance.

No, it isn't.  It's a fitting illustration of a fault in Mr Black's argument. He advocates the superiority of the Absolute Morality of Scripture over the moral relativism of ideas based on good intentions and kindness and empathy. Yet his Absolute Morality couldn't keep him out of jail. What good is a codex of absolute morality when people just substitute their own judgment (or misjudgment) anyway?

A classic example was Newt Gingrich, in the 2012 primaries, standing on a stage asking "How can I trust you if you don't pray?"  His message was that if you don't subscribe to a defined set of rules, and if you don't fear the wrath of a God who will punish you for breaking those rules, he can't trust you. Well, Newt, how can we trust you under any circumstances?  All the prayer in the world couldn't keep Newt from being a lying, cheating serial adulterer who didn't even pay his own campaign staff after he dropped out of the race. I think there's only a couple of Commandments left that Newt hasn't broken, regardless of his fear of the judgment at the hands of an all-seeing God.

I mean, clearly the notion of an absolute morality and an eternal judgment doesn't inspire the kind of obedience that Mr Black claims it should, and his own life is proof of the point.

22 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am not advocating Conrad's religion, which I strongly disagree with.  But I agree with his diagnosis of society.   Logic and reason has never been a good guide of society or morality because everyone has a different idea of what that should mean. 

The notion that the Bible confers an absolute and indisputable morality should be dismissed. Over the centuries, the contents of the Bible haven't changed, but the interpretation of its contents has changed dramatically.  Slavery used to be good! Now it's bad! Both justified using the Bible. Other examples can be found.  The prevalent Christian interpretation of the Bible's intentions makes it just another example of the "Ghastly Enfeeblement of Moral Relativism" that Black rages against.

The source of the ongoing evolution of our interpretation of the Bible's contents? Primarily logic, reason, and most of all compassion.

 -k

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

treating slaves with fairness

Anyhoooooo.....

 

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

These are christian principles.  You find these principles in western or Jude-Christian countries more so than other countries that were often barbaric. 

These are HUMAN principles.  The reason you see them more in Western societies is because we've been moderatelly successful in edging religion OUT of things.  Barbaric countries are still barbaric because of religion.

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Christian women are treated with respect. 

Only because women themselves have fought for and continue to fight for it.  Certainly not because of the Christian religion. 

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Barbaric countries are still barbaric because of religion.

You're pretty funny, Goddess. 

Edited April 17, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, kimmy said:

Meaning, people can be manipulated through patriotism and religion to rally behind terrible ideas. Worked for Hitler.  I bet every Middle East strong-man tells his citizens that Allah is on his side too.

Not only Hitler, Kimmy. But you know that. You're just reluctant to point out the other times westerners have supported equal things.

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Anyhoooooo.....

 

These are HUMAN principles.  The reason you see them more in Western societies is because we've been moderatelly successful in edging religion OUT of things.  Barbaric countries are still barbaric because of religion.

Only because women themselves have fought for and continue to fight for it.  Certainly not because of the Christian religion. 

Sure you can find many individuals with serious faults and shortcomings such as what you pointed out.  But we are speaking about the broad picture of western civilization which has advanced gradually as a Judeio-Christian civilization.  The fact women have more rights and you are correct they did have to fight for them.  However, they were accepted by parliaments as reasonable improvements to our democratic system.  Same as our social welfare system.  These were accepted as as necessary part of a compassionate society.  If you want to get a better understanding, you have to look at the overall picture.   Other countries that do not have the western Judeo-Christian culture, did not create the prosperous, generous society that we have in the west.  Even Roman Catholicism in many countries held people back and they are today suiffering with major problems.  The Reformation in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries was followed by an Enlightenment.  This led to more freedom and respect for the individual.  The right to own private property developed and society moved away from the feudal system.  This created individual initiative.  That led to economic development and investment, growth of the economy, etc.  Where there was no Reformation and enlightenment, many countries remained in dark superstitious religions.  Central and South America, Africa, etc remained backward and undeveloped.

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Sure you can find many individuals with serious faults and shortcomings such as what you pointed out.  But we are speaking about the broad picture of western civilization which has advanced gradually as a Judeio-Christian civilization.  The fact women have more rights and you are correct they did have to fight for them.  However, they were accepted by parliaments as reasonable improvements to our democratic system.  Same as our social welfare system.  These were accepted as as necessary part of a compassionate society.

That's my point.

If it were up to religion, we wouldn't have the advances we do - women would still have no rights, homosexuals would still be being tossed off rooftops.

 

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

That's my point.

If it were up to religion, we wouldn't have the advances we do - women would still have no rights, homosexuals would still be being tossed off rooftops.

 

You missed the point.  The reason women and others receive rights in western civilization is because the attitude of compassion and fairness is a Judeo-Christian principle in the west.  That is why we have democracy, a judicial system with juries, appeal processes, social services, etc.   Go to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, Iran, and most others countries, you will not find these rights.  It is the attitude of people in western countries whether you recognize it or not is influenced by Judeo-Christian thinking.  This attitude in the west developed over centuries.  Australia, New Zealand, western Europe, Canada, and the United States are built on Judeo-Christian principles and thinking.  I am not saying they follow the bible in every law that is made.  I hope you understand it is the general belief in a fair and compassionate socieity that developed over centuries that did not develop in many third world countries.  This did not happen by accident.  Many non-western countries women are still treated as chattel and way down the totem pole.  They have no rights and are more like slaves.  Must remain covered and are subject to absolute control by their husband.  There are places where they do all the had work, work the farmland, etc. while the men sit around.

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

he reason women and others receive rights in western civilization is because the attitude of compassion and fairness is a Judeo-Christian principle in the west. 

You have such a selective, short, convenient memory, blackbird.

[Goddess]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You missed the point.

No, I "get" your point.

You're saying the West has rights that other countries do not have BECAUSE OF THE CHRISTIAN religion.  

I'm saying we have rights that other countries do not have IN SPITE of religion, because we have given it less importance in the West.

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No, I "get" your point.

You're saying the West has rights that other countries do not have BECAUSE OF THE CHRISTIAN religion.  

I'm saying we have rights that other countries do not have IN SPITE of religion, because we have given it less importance in the West.

Then can you explain why the western countries that have a nominal christianity or Judeo-Christian culture are far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of respect of individual rights freedoms, and more prosperity for the average person than the rest of the non-christian world?  Asia, India, the Middle east Muslim Countries, and much of Africa are in poverty, undeveloped and do not have social programs and respect for human rights that the west has.  They have religion in the third world countries but their religion does not teach them the same principles that Judeo-Christianity has taught the west.   How can you explain that?

[blackbird]

57 minutes ago, kimmy said:

No, it isn't.  It's a fitting illustration of a fault in Mr Black's argument. He advocates the superiority of the Absolute Morality of Scripture over the moral relativism of ideas based on good intentions and kindness and empathy. Yet his Absolute Morality couldn't keep him out of jail. What good is a codex of absolute morality when people just substitute their own judgment (or misjudgment) anyway?

A classic example was Newt Gingrich, in the 2012 primaries, standing on a stage asking "How can I trust you if you don't pray?"  His message was that if you don't subscribe to a defined set of rules, and if you don't fear the wrath of a God who will punish you for breaking those rules, he can't trust you. Well, Newt, how can we trust you under any circumstances?  All the prayer in the world couldn't keep Newt from being a lying, cheating serial adulterer who didn't even pay his own campaign staff after he dropped out of the race. I think there's only a couple of Commandments left that Newt hasn't broken, regardless of his fear of the judgment at the hands of an all-seeing God.

I mean, clearly the notion of an absolute morality and an eternal judgment doesn't inspire the kind of obedience that Mr Black claims it should, and his own life is proof of the point.

The notion that the Bible confers an absolute and indisputable morality should be dismissed. Over the centuries, the contents of the Bible haven't changed, but the interpretation of its contents has changed dramatically.  Slavery used to be good! Now it's bad! Both justified using the Bible. Other examples can be found.  The prevalent Christian interpretation of the Bible's intentions makes it just another example of the "Ghastly Enfeeblement of Moral Relativism" that Black rages against.

The source of the ongoing evolution of our interpretation of the Bible's contents? Primarily logic, reason, and most of all compassion.

 -k

I don't think Conrad is advocating any kind theocracy or a government theorcracy.  I don't advocate that either.  The danger of a theocracy is often everyone has a different interpretation of the bible.  That has been tried in the 1500 or 1600s in Geneva and was found to be too strict and harsh in some ways.   The best system is what we have.  We elect a government.  It's not perfect but it is the best system in the world.  What Black is emphasizing is while there are many reasonable or good atheists,  atheism is itself a destructive kind of ideology that goes against the best principles of our western civilization.  It has serious dangers in it as well.

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

How can you explain that?

I did. 

 

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You're saying the West has rights that other countries do not have BECAUSE OF THE CHRISTIAN religion.  

I'm saying we have rights that other countries do not have IN SPITE of religion, because we have given it less importance in the West.

As religious control declined in the West, humans were afforded more rights.  

In countries where there is still a large religious influence, they don't have it as well.

But if you think we should all bow down to Christianity for giving us our rights, I think you're wrong.  Religion most often fights against (and continues to fight against) any progress in society.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, kimmy said:

.

The notion that the Bible confers an absolute and indisputable morality should be dismissed. Over the centuries, the contents of the Bible haven't changed, but the interpretation of its contents has changed dramatically.  Slavery used to be good! Now it's bad! Both justified using the Bible. Other examples can be found.  The prevalent Christian interpretation of the Bible's intentions makes it just another example of the "Ghastly Enfeeblement of Moral Relativism" that Black rages against.

The source of the ongoing evolution of our interpretation of the Bible's contents? Primarily logic, reason, and most of all compassion.

 -k

There are thousands of different denominations and yes many different interpretations of the bible.  But there is general agreement by large sements of christianity on certain basic teachings in the bible.  These basic teachings are in confessions such as the Apostles Creed developed in the early centuries based on clear teachings in the bible.  These have not changed.  The Reformation discovered that the established church (Roman Catholic) had departed from the historic apostolic faith and that is why they rejected the Roman church.  Men like Martin Luther (who were RC priests before), John Calvin in Geneva, and John Knox in Scotland were among the leaders of the Reformation and a desire to return to the apostolic faith as taught by Jesus in the bible.   Nobody is suggesting there should be a theological dictatorship as in some Islamic republics where you have an Ayatolah.  That would not be good because humans are often fallible and wrong.   That was tried by the Holy Roman Empire and did not work well for people.