To ask if you are not a Christian, what non Christian values you live by?

[BlossomBlanket]

Just that really!

Sure, but that's about the person, not about interpreting the content of his writings.

Really? All because you are choosing to misunderstand the point I have been making?
There's no pile on. There's a (from most participants) honest debate.

I think you're misunderstanding.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that such "survival and flourishing" is a moral imperative.

Mammals (and some other animals) that live in groups tend to exhibit empathic behaviours (particularly towards those in their group but also to others of their species).

Animals (humans included) develop empathy, likely as an evolutionary mechanism to maintain social cohesion within their group.

In the case of human societies, notions borne of empathy (e.g., not killing, assaulting or stealing from others in your group) were ultimately codified as laws.

Although that (us heathens would say) is what caused humans and other animals develop a sense of empathy in the first place, it does not follow that every empathic action is geared towards advancing the aims of the group.

Can I ask why you think other mammals, particularly those that live in groups, tend to exhibit empathic behaviour (e.g., helping out another of their species, for no "personal" reward, in a manner that would be called "moral" by most human standards)? Do you think that they have some level of innate understand of morality and the need to be good? (Genuine question, would be interested in your thoughts)

You'd probably be wrong, as you so wittily put, because you don't actually know that person, so they might be. You've just read their theories.

Theories have to be tested (evidence) to be become objectively true (fact). Many in the humanities cannot be tested to provide enough evidence to prove anything, because humans, which these studies are about, are wildly different to one another. So what is objectively true for one is absolutely false for another.

That's why many atheists perfect the sciences. Because things can be proved, they can become facts. You can see the evidence for yourself. But you'll probably find most scientific thinkers who aren't also religious (because there's many of those too) are agnostic rather than atheist, because you can't prove a negative. So they can't categorically say God doesn't exist, but because they cannot evidence it they don't believe.

Proper scientific thinkers are open to believing anything. If you are willing to discuss it rationally and openly and provide evidence for your argument. Not just "it's in a textbook and an essay I wrote got great marks". Proper, structured arguments.

I love how this has come full circle and I'm the one trying to appeal to "truth" about what Neitszche said about the matter and you're the one now arguing that even in the hard sciences it's not so simple 😆

To put my argument in a nutshell - your morals sound very very Christian to me. Despite your hostility to Christianity, it's moral system is the water you swim in and feels so obviously true. My fear is that atheism seems oblivious to this, and anti-theists are busily sawing away at the branch upon which they stand. You disagree and think that Christianity codified what was already the dominant moral framework of the time, having emerged through the wisdom of the ages. I don't think so. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7eSyz3BaVK8 is worth a watch, Tom Holland, discusses this thesis, which is his, with AC Grayling. I haven't actually watched it yet.

I largely agree with you, save that no theory can ever be objectively true or a fact (just extremely well-evidenced to the point where they can be taken as fact in an every day sense).

We were never going to agree, were we? And that's fine. I don't understand what you are so afraid of, though. If you really think that humanity is going to abandon common sense moral principles just because more people are choosing not to believe, you have, as I have suggested, a very jaded view of humanity. Me, I'm more of an optimist.

I'm more of an optimist too.

But even if I thought the OP was right, it wouldn't actually change my stance towards religion. You can't just decide to believe something because you think it's better for society. You can pretend to believe, I suppose, but that's not the same thing.

We weren't talking about theories though. We were talking about what a poster said Neitszche did not say. He said ""a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been poetically and rhetorically intensified, transferred, and embellished, and which, after long use, seem to a people to be fixed, canonical, and obligatory." I am asserting that Neitszche is saying here that truth is produced, not discovered. A previous poster said Neitszche did not say this.

"Proper scientific thinkers are open to believing anything. If you are willing to discuss it rationally and openly and provide evidence for your argument. Not just "it's in a textbook and an essay I wrote got great marks". Proper, structured arguments."

I mean, he literally said that. This kind of proves my point though, nobody can know anything. What standard of evidence do we require, other than the statement from the man himself who said that thing. Yet Ipsy demands a proper structured argument that this is in fact what he said - what does that look like other than the quote in the book he wrote? This is beyond absurd now. I don't know why I'm even replying. So these proper structured arguments - these can't contain direct quotes right? Because that's not evidence - it needs to be a properly structured argument doesn't it. So what could this argument be comprised of Ipsy - if one isn't allowed to use quotes? Because we should be making properly structured arguments.

I think you can

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I tried very hard to believe when I was younger. Went to church, read the bible, got myself baptised, prayed a lot etc. Went through the motions for a very long time before finally admitting to myself that I just didn't believe in it. The more I tried to study it and the more I talked about it to other Christians, the less it made sense.

So no, I don't think you can choose to believe. If faith doesn't come naturally, you can choose to kid yourself. But ultimately, you will know deep down that you don't think it's real.

I remember wondering how on earth Catholics, very intelligent, highly educated people, could believe in transubstantiation. And one day, I learned the answer, 'it is enough to will it to be so'. I think much of the difficulty is in conceptualising God, because the God most atheists say they don't believe in is nothing like the God most theists believe in. Understand 'faith' and 'belief' as trust and it starts making more sense. It think that in current Western culture, it is virtually impossible to have a wholehearted belief in the way we once might have. But you can take yourself from non belief to confidence if you really do choose to. I was a more virulent atheist than anyone on this thread. Until I saw what happens when God is taken away, and where things are going. For me it is a defence of the human, I know that it is true and good. But I do believe humans are weak and fallen and need a lot of help. We need help from each other, not to be left alone to fail and flail in isolation.

I wish I knew what that optimism was grounded in. On the current trajectory I see nothing good ahead. With hyper/late stage whatever you want to call it, "nothing human survives the near future"

Christianity was our anchor. Without it, we are lost with no map. 'Common sense' is highly relative and calls killing the weak and vulnerable, sterilising and mutilating children "care". Money is the only thing which has any true currency now, if people want and can afford something, they get it. With developments in bio tech, the potential for this is terrifying. But it will be cloaked in all the right language, we will think we are being good and kind.

At what point in history do you think European society was at its most moral? (If that's a bit broad in geographic scope, feel free to narrow it down).

I've read your post a few times, and it still makes no sense to me, really. To be honest, it was exactly this kind of thinking that helped me to realise that I wouldn't ever believe.

"Willing it to be so" obviously makes sense to you in some way, but it doesn't sound much like faith or belief to me at all. Rather more like an elaborate pretence to the self, a conscious choice to suspend disbelief. Fair enough if it works for you, but it was all too "Emperor's New Clothes" for my liking, but each to their own.

There was a time when I desperately wanted to believe, but that was before I knew very much about Christianity. The more I learned, the less sense it made.

I guess I might have been more persuaded to carry on with the make-believe if I had actually seen it as something worth aspiring to, but ultimately, I didn't share your view that Christianity had any of the answers. To you, I get that the world looks bleak when God is taken away. For me, it doesn't really look any different. I tried a number of different churches, and from what I have observed, Christians are every bit as flawed as the rest of us. I found no evidence of any unique wisdom, insight or compassion. No higher morals. No more courage or honesty. No less pettiness. No less bigotry. No more peace. Just a belief in some Christians- certainly not all - that they were right and that everyone else was wrong. I found that side of it rather arrogant tbh, and terribly lacking in humility. I also saw a great deal of hypocrisy.

On top of all that, there was the issue of the Christian God, who is portrayed in the Bible as a loving father, but also comes across at times as capricious, vengeful or even cruel. There were a lot of things that didn't accord with my idea of a loving parent, and I never found a Christian who could provide any convincing explanation of this. Just platitudes, generally. I couldn't paper over the inconsistencies and the cognitive dissonance was too much for me personally.

I did come across some amazing Christians to be fair, who were inspired by their faith to serve others and do some incredible things. But I have seen equally amazing people of other faiths and none. So that alone didn't really carry much weight for me.

Perhaps I could have carried on going through the motions of pretending to believe. Perhaps, had I carried on for long enough, I might even have almost persuaded myself, if I had "really chosen to do so". At least, perhaps, I could have done a better job of burying my doubts and pushing them away.

However, having spent a few years exploring that avenue, I suppose I didn't make the choice to keep playing that game because I saw no real reason to choose it. I liked the sense of community that the church had to offer. I liked the singing and I liked the ritual. But ultimately, I didn't find any value in it beyond that, and I felt that there were other more honest ways of me creating those things in my life.

I have every respect for people who find comfort or inspiration in their faith, and I am genuinely glad that they have that in their lives. However, I really struggle to stay patient with those who seek to push their faith on to others, with those who are convinced that they have found the one true path, or with those who believe that they somehow have the moral high ground, because for me, those attitudes represent the very worst of Christianity.

I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply telling you what many people require to believe something. Listen if you want, don't if you don't.

I imagine you're responding because you asked the questions in the first place, because you wanted to tell people they were wrong. I'm basing this of your attitude in all your responses throughout the thread.

Let's tell you what you want to hear, shall we? You're right. Facts and evidence are absolutely nonsense. No one knows anything except you, who knows everything because you got an A+ on an essay in the Sociology of Religion.

Well done you.

In order to believe I would need evidence and there isn’t any.

I think you're conflating two distinct strands of argument here. You're muddling up an initial strand of argument where you are saying that you need facts and evidence to believe in anything and then a later strand where a poster had taken issue with what I had said Neitszche had argued about truth. They're two different things, but I think you're attacking me just for the sake of attacking, it's nonsense at this stage but actually quite entertaining really to hear you reject a quote where someone literally says something and demanding that instead of that quite strong piece of evidence (a quote of the person saying the thing) you wanted a properly structured argument instead. I assume without any quotes then, as direct quotes are inadmissible as evidence of what someone said and you'd rather have that 'structured argument', and I'm enjoying the notion of an essay trying to prove that someone said something without directly quoting them saying it as that would lead to an infinite series of further 'structured arguments' trying to demonstrate without quoting what someone said. When I was in my Richard Dawkins fangirl phase in my youth I remember he used a term "yapping terriers of ignorance", it's funny that would come to mind now

Radical Equality?

OK he told people not to stone the woman taken in adultery, but he didn't say anything about the man she was with.

No, you're conflating the two. I'm not interested in your take on Neitszche. I've only been discussing your bizarre claim that facts aren't real.

That phrase has come to your mind because you're talking utter crap. This is the last I'll be engaging with you because there's no point even trying to discuss with someone who insists evidence doesn't exist.

"No, you're conflating the two. I'm not interested in your take on Neitszche. I've only been discussing your bizarre claim that facts aren't real."

No, you were, see below. The "It's in a textbook and I got good marks" jibe was specifically in relation to Neitszche on truth, see the quote below, but then, you probably don't accept even your own quotes of evidence of your past statements, you need a proper structured argument. Do you really think I believe in God because of a textbook?

"Proper scientific thinkers are open to believing anything. If you are willing to discuss it rationally and openly and provide evidence for your argument. Not just "it's in a textbook and an essay I wrote got great marks". Proper, structured arguments."

If you want facts - watch this

https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/astronomy/how-did-the-universe-begin

You really do have a bleak view of humanity, but if you think religion and specifically Christianity is the solution, you're also very naive. You have but to look at the US right now to see what happens when you let religion loose. Same in much of the Middle East.

Meanwhile the biotechnology you disparage is also being used to treat and even cure diseases we used to be powerless against. Things like that are a tool. Whether they work for good or evil depends on the hands wielding them.

The world is a difficult place right now, but the things you reference as solely evil, I see as complex and often necessary.

You see abortion as an undiluted evil - I see it as a sad necessity in a world where things go wrong and where there is as yet no failsafe contraception and no way of ensuring a zero rate of awful birth defects.

You see assisted dying as a great evil - well, my grandmother had an assisted death in 2006, and it allowed her to cross over without pain, dignity and mental faculties fully intact, on the presence of her family.

Life is shades of grey and layers of complexity.

As for people being entirely driven by money - if that is what you see, you need to look elsewhere because what I see around me is community, support, love, selflessness and much joy. Take off those dark glasses.

I wonder if you think your theory expressed here, "that no theory can ever be objectively true or a fact" is itself objectively true or a fact?

It seems that if it a fact, then it isn't a fact. And if it isn't a fact ... then it isn't a fact. That is, is isn't (can't be) true.

Do you see the difficulty?

.

Mainly, though, here I want to apologise to the OP, @BlossomBlanket .... It does seem I upset you; I didn't mean to. I assessed the level of the discussion wrongly, hence my largely inappropriate tone. This seems a ubiquitous difficulty in online discussions, but I should have known better. I'm sorry.

.

Just a couple or four final points for you, @BlossomBlanket ..:

• Epimenides was the Cretan who infamously claimed Cretans were liars, giving rise to the (surprisingly fecund) paradox. (He even gets a mention in one of Paul's Epistles, forget which.) I'm sure you see the relevance.

• "Nothing is really true" can't be really true, can it?

• You pointed out in one of your posts that Nietzsche "... argued that truths are ... metaphors worn out ...". A friend once used to tell me that any fact is nothing more than a dead metaphor:- Hmm. An example of a dead metaphor? --People used to drive cattle and sheep to market by standing behind the herd with a stick and bashing the laggards on the bum. It was also possible to drive horses in the same way while they were attached to a carriage or coach. Hence (long story short here) horseless carriages were themselves metaphorically driven, although no stick and no cows' or horses' bums were in question. Now that metaphor is dead, and if you get in your car and drive into town and park, it is a simple fact that you drove into town and parked. The metaphor died; it became worn out as a metaphor ... now it expresses a truth.OK, it's perhaps pushing the envelope to claim as did my friend that all facts are dead metaphors. But, nevertheless, worn out metaphors can be - and often are - capable of being true. No?

And, lastly, @BlossomBlanket, your professors should have told you (but seemingly failed to) that there are perhaps different views, even amongst professors themselves, about such things as the status of Friedrich Nietzsche as a precursor of postmodernism. Think for yourself, they should have said -- but apparently didn't. It's never too late ...