Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Svitlana - I am in the CoE because I'm an Anglican, not because I support the idea of a state church. I would very much support disestablishment, but it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

---

Why do you support disestablishment? It's not like Anglicans are tyrants that don't let others worship as they wish.

If you support disestablishment, you lot will probably become as godless as our lot here in Australia that dispensed with disestablishment in the early 1800's.

Lord have mercy.

---

Because Establishment is inherently unfair (to even other Christians) and undemocratic, and the idea of a state church is Constantinian rather than Christian. And religion is a much bigger deal in Australia than in the UK so I'm not seeing what the problem is!

It's pretty rude to dismissively label your fellow Australians as 'godless'.

Edited to add that I'm not sure what me personally supporting disestablishment has to do with England becoming 'godless'. I'm not going to single-handedly make the CoE disestablish It's very unlikely to happen anytime soon, most CoE Anglicans do not support it.

[ 23. April 2014, 13:48: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Svitlana - I am in the CoE because I'm an Anglican, not because I support the idea of a state church. I would very much support disestablishment, but it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

---

Perhaps the big upcoming 'atheist contribution' will be to sort this out!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:

But the fact is, individual atheists frequently make very positive contributions - and some demonstrate a 'nobility of spirit' which puts those of us who have inspirational beliefs, to shame. As a Christian, I am far more concerned why my faith - which should be the ultimate motivation - has failed to change the world, than I am with comparing my input to that of those who don't have my advantages.

---

I have been trying to compose my answer to the OP - you have put it in a nutshell here.



--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, nobody can deny that there has been a 'turn away from God' historically, and this led, amongst other things, to science.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, nobody can deny that there has been a 'turn away from God' historically, and this led, amongst other things, to science.

---

Surely the reverse? Science does not preclude deity, but neither does it need it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, nobody can deny that there has been a 'turn away from God' historically, and this led, amongst other things, to science.

---

Surely the reverse? Science does not preclude deity, but neither does it need it.

---

I don't get your 'reverse'. Science shows a turn towards naturalism, away from theism; hence Laplace's comment to Napoleon.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just don't see 'atheism is a lack' as a rhetorical move. I've known quite a lot of atheists in my life, partly because my whole family are, and I can't see that they have anything in common.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
All 'lacks of belief' are per se exactly equivalent if you exclude consideration of any positive philosophy. You can't tell the difference between a 'lack of belief' in little grey aliens abducting people and a 'lack of belief' in astrology if you exclude consideration of positive beliefs in little grey aliens or astrology. If somebody 'lacks belief' in both little grey men and in astrology you can't ascribe any actions they take to one lack or the other.
For all X, a lack of belief in X cannot make contributions.

---

Rubbish. Do you believe in the tooth fairy? No? Does this "lack of" obviate your belief in, say, democracy as a form of governance? Does it prevent your following the Golden Rule? Does it interfere with your writing poetry praising the trinity, painting pictures to express your joy in the resurrection, etc.? What I'm taking exception to is your characterization of atheism as a philosophy.

---

quote:

---

However, it is perfectly possible for any random atheist to develop and adhere to some alternative philosophy, and make positive contributions to his/her community or to culture on that basis. I don't claim that said contribution is on the basis of his/her atheism. It's simply that belief in supernatural divinity is not relevant to that individual's belief system (assuming s/he has one).

---

quote:

---

I think it's just as likely that Bach's contributions to music are due solely to his passion for music as they are due to any religious feelings he might have had; that his cantatas contain lyrics with religious themes could be due entirely to that fact that his employers included the church and/or people with obligatory relationships to the church.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On a day when UK atheists are whining about David Cameron calling this a Christian country I would like to ask, specifically what atheism as a philosophy, as a belief-system, as a principle has actually done that is positive, good, productive and beneficial in and for this world. I don't mean individual atheists, but atheism as a driving force - as opposed to Christianity as a driving force. What is atheism actually FOR? What has it inspired? What cultural progress has been made in the name of atheism? What sacrifices have been made, what beauty has been created, what energy has been released where atheism has been credited as the driving force?

---

What is Atheism for?

Getting rid of the crap that prevents us focussing on what is actually important; this world, this universe, and our fellow human beings. We aren't praying to cure diseases any more, wasting our time and actively making those being prayed for edgier. We're curing diseases.

What energy has been released? Enough energy to create genuinely secular documents like The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Once you've got the invisible pink unicorn out of the way you can start worrying about things that are actually important. Most atheists don't ultimately care about the difference between atheism, secularism, and deism - just that we can get on with making this world a better one. Or that we can get on with looting this world (I'm not claiming that being an Atheist makes you a good person - merely that it means that you aren't pouring your energy into building ridiculously ornate churches, and into PCC meetings).

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, not just David Cameron after all...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, not just David Cameron after all...

---

Sigh. I'm completely happy with Nick Clegg's description of the UK as a country that is 'founded on Christian values', but a 'Christian country'? No thank you. I'm not so fussed with a non-theologian like David Cameron using the phrase, but it alarms me to see it used by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So, not just David Cameron after all...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So when the Christian majority you're so fond of citing drops below 50% is it first past the post?
Do you simply not count non-believers or have to form coalitions with the other Abrahamic religions in order to be the national religion?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
.... and the National Anthem will be scrapped in favour of 'There'll always be an England.' ...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:

quote:

---

The abolition of slavery... Christians either began or were heavily involved in.

---

Indeed. It only took about 18 centuries for Christianity to decide it was not very nice. And even then there were Bible quoting Christians on the other side.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
.... and the National Anthem will be scrapped in favour of 'There'll always be an England.' ...

---

A lot of us atheists, would prefer "Jerusalem" - and not just the ones in the WI.

---

Jerusalem? Seriously?
The poem that reflects on a possible visit by Jesus to England and the idea that the Kingdom of God, the New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation, can be built in England's green & pleasant land?

I specifically chose There'll always be an England because of its non-religious theme.

But, ah well, if you want to believe Christian aspirations as part of your atheist dream, so be it. Welcome to the yearning we have for God's Kingdom to come on earth as it is in Heaven.

[ 26. April 2014, 07:26: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:

quote:

---

The abolition of slavery... Christians either began or were heavily involved in.

---

Indeed. It only took about 18 centuries for Christianity to decide it was not very nice. And even then there were Bible quoting Christians on the other side.

---

Not really. Paul's letters create the uncomfortable situation of masters being forced to recognise their slaves as equals (you can argue with Sarah Ruden's Paul among the People who extends that setting). Robin Fox's Pagans and Christians points out that Christians regularly freed slaves in church and in front of the bishop. Melania, Ovidius, Chromatius, Hermes and many other Christian bishops emancipated thousands of slaves as "an act of piety" (Lecky). Constantine for all his faults, issued the death penalty for those who kidnapped children to bring up as slaves.

Lactantius argued from a theological perspective that there were no slaves in God's eyes, Chrysostom preached that Christ came to annul slavery, and suggessted that not only was it not necessary to have slaves, but you should buy them, teach them a skill by which they could earn a living, and then set them free. Gregory of Nyssa called for abolition in his Fourth Homily on Ecclesiastes denouncing both ownership and the institution of slavery. Augustine said it was a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan.
Pope Callixtus I was an ex-slave.

That's all by the 5th century. It was pretty much seen as bad thing from the start.

---

Who are you? You should post more often.

--------------------
a theological scrapbook

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:

That's all by the 5th century. It was pretty much seen as bad thing from the start.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

And yet, by the late 6th century, we have another pope making
disturbing puns about slaves, rather than expressing outrage. And remind me what religion was ascribed to by the majority of the European beneficiaries of the Triangle trade.
Yes, by the end of the 11th century, England finally got around to banning it in England. But kept serfdom. Yay progress?

---

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:

If you want to say that Christians are inconsistent, I’m all for that, but you can’t argue that Christianity has been pro-slavery. There are some Christians who are pro-slavery but there are some who are not. Everything else is moral presentism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

If you want to say that Christians are inconsistent, I’m all for that, but you can’t argue that Christianity has been pro-slavery. There are some Christians who are pro-slavery but there are some who are not. Everything else is moral presentism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

There is a more disturbing aspect to this discourse. This discussion has turned towards slavery. Yet right now there are at least 20 million people enslaved. Bear in mind that a substantial proportion of those provide us in the west with cut-price goods and services. If this discourse does not even address that fact, yet continues with finger-pointing at other ages, then there is only one conclusion to be drawn. That is that we of all all people are the rankest hypocrites

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

I am not arguing that Christianity is pro-slavery. I am arguing against the Premise of the OP that Christianity is morally superior and that atheists, and presumably the rest of us heathens, have no positive contribution to society without scabbing onto Christian virtue.

---

quote:

---

As far as Christianity having no mechanism, seriously? Henry VIII divorced himself and the state for precisely that reason, that the church had far too much influence and control.
Did the barons and princes jump on the Protestant bandwagon through religious piety, No, they did so because it removed power from the church and placed it more directly in their own hands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:

Maybe, just maybe, countries' values, politics and cultures are shaped by things other than a single religion.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:
OP's initial question actually was "what has atheism done as a driving force?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:
OP's initial question actually was "what has atheism done as a
To argue against that premise means that you need to prove that Christianity either isn't a driving force or if it is, hasn't done anything worthwhile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:

monolithic complete power purely

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:

and that the period was noted for the angling between Church, monarch, and nobility. It starts to solidify around the 13thC, (after slavery is essentially gone) but kings regularly challenged it all the way to and through the Reformation (cf Worms, the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Magna Carta, Henry III etc.,)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

It might be slow, inconsistent, or haphazard, but slavery is one thing it attempted to eradicate twice, once during the mediaeval period, and once in the Victorian.

---

quote:

---

A counter-argument should at least show the early mediaeval atheist movement shouting for abolition.

---

quote:

---

If you can show that within the early mediaeval period, go ahead.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Given the OP hasn't proved anything, why is their need to prove counterclaims?

---

quote:

---

Did not use any such terminology. Absolutes are rarely appropriate and erroneously assigning strengthens not your counter.

---

quote:

---

How does this do aught but reiterate my contention that the church had power?

---

quote:

---

As far as Christianity having no mechanism, seriously?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jerusalem? Seriously?
The poem that reflects on a possible visit by Jesus to England and the idea that the Kingdom of God, the New Jerusalem of the Book of Revelation, can be built in England's green & pleasant land?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:

Well, it certainly was slow and inconsistent. Aquinas reckoned that servitude was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, but appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin. And as late as 1866 Pope Pius IX thought it was not against divine law for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged.

---

quote:

---

Between the 6th and 12th century there was a growing sentiment that slavery was not compatible with Christian conceptions of charity and justice; some argued against slavery

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

A counter-argument should at least show the early mediaeval atheist movement shouting for abolition.

---

What medieval atheist movement?

---

quote:

---

I don't know who's arguing that the whole of our national identity, culture, ethics and political thought formed in the early medieval period,

---

quote:

---

so I'll go back a bit and name only one. Who put the Classical into Classical Theism? Small hint, they gave us our philosophy, lots of our maths, art, architecture and much more besides. As much if not more than Christianity ever did.
Edited the URL.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:
The abolition of the slave trade (having roots in 1 Timothy 1:10, possibly the sole text that is absolutely clear) and slavery was entirely a Christian endeavour.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
The passage you cite isn't as "absolutely clear" as you argue. It doesn't argue against slave owning or slave trading, but slave-taking. Those three were regarded as different (though obviously inter-related) things in the ancient world. An eighteenth century example of a nation parsing this distinction is the U.S. Navy contributing ships to the efforts to suppress the African slave trade. This was despite the fact that at the time the U.S. was a slave owning and slave trading nation. Slave-taking was seen as wrong in a way not true of slavery generally.

---

By that I mean it's one of the few texts that is clear about slaves regardless (rather than being clear about abolition, that's just my poor wording). I did throw in a 'possibly' but that would be more for the later years. I'm working on the assumption that the mediaeval church is relying on the Latin Vulgate on this(plagiariis), or kidnappers, but the most common pronouncement against slavery is usually about slave-trading, and that goes for both Continental and Anglo-Saxon rulings (cf the Third General Council of the Lateran).
Interestingly, there are a number of papal grants in the 15th century for slave-taking (mostly Saracens, hostiles, and non-Christians), and this extends into the 16th century for African slaves.

--------------------
In cyberspace everyone can hear your spleen...

Posted                       

quote:

---

The modern abolition of the slave trade was essentially Christian in nature and action, even if some freethinkers also thought it wasn't a good idea.

---

quote:

---

Do you know who gave the theoretical justification and legislative framework for slavery into Classical Theism? Those very same people

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
I don't think of atheism as a "lack of belief, " as mentioned upthread: rather, as a belief that there is no God. Atheism is used to mean both an absence of belief and a disbelief in god(s). The common base line is the lack of belief - if you wish to define it to suit your preferences you, of course, can do so - but you leave yourself open to misunderstanding and ridicule. But I would still say atheism is a belief-system. And for some (sometimes referred to as antitheists to distinguish them from the rest of us) it may be, but it doesn't have to be and therefore extrapolations based upon that definition are somewhat akin to calling all christians "snake-handlers" just because some hold to a minority interpretation of Mark 16:18

As a Christian, I am far more concerned why my faith - which should be the ultimate motivation - has failed to change the world, than I am with comparing my input to that of those who don't have my advantages. Sounding a bit Luke 18:11 ? though I have to admit that I once would have said something very similar - mea culpa

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Science (in terms of experimentation) not only doesn't require god(s) it specifically excludes the supernatural

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Science (in terms of experimentation) not only doesn't require god(s) it specifically excludes the supernatural

---

I'd quibble with this wording.

Doesn't "excluding" something imply it exists? You can't exclude something that isn't there in the first place. Rather, I'd say that science investigates the natural, along with theories and predictions arising from the natural.

After all, quite recently in human history, all kinds of natural phenomena we take completely for granted -- electric light or microwaves or cell phones -- would be seen by a resident of 14th-century Paris (should you somehow transport her and drop her into our midst) -- as supernatural, and probably not in a good way.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flubb:
Interestingly, there are a number of papal grants in the 15th century for slave-taking (mostly Saracens, hostiles, and non-Christians), and this extends into the 16th century for African slaves.

---