Christian Atheism

[Ella S.]

There is much that I respect about Jeffersonianism, Christian Existentialism, and Christian Deontology, all of which have their fair share of "Culturally Christian" atheists.

However, I still disagree with them, just as I disagree with other secular philosophies like Humanism and LaVeyan Satanism. I am a Utilitarian, which is incompatible with Christian virtue ethics, deontology, human rights, and Social Darwinism. These are competing ethical philosophies.

As a functionalist, I even think that my ethics is "correct" in that it is rooted in a sort of evolutionary teleology, which puts me at odds with Kant's idealism (since it is naturalistic) and with Kierkegaard's existentialism (since I posit the existence of an objective morality).

Personally, I also do not feel welcome among Christian imagery, because I know that most Christians consider atheist Christians to not be "real Christians." Honestly, I also don't see the appeal of Jesus, because to me he was just some ancient Jewish cult leader.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just because you believe something doesn't make it possible.

Well, as long as your belief leads to further behaviour which is possible, the belief works.
It is the Thomas Theorem: “if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”.

Here is a simple setup:
Someone: The world is natural and every other claim is wrong and should be suppressed.
Someone else: The world is from God and every other claim is wrong and should be suppressed.
Me; Both are beliefs without evidence, so what about we try to agree on something else.

 

[Sedim Haba]

​

Just to support the true flexibility of the Christian religion, one can be an atheist and a Christian.

Every man today who is open to experience knows that God is absent, but only the Christian knows that God is dead, that the death of God is a final and irrevocable event and that God's death has actualized in our history a new and liberated humanity.-Altizer, Thomas J. J. The Gospel of Christian Atheism. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966.

I suppose Jesus died to free man from God?

Another view is that God never existed but Jesus can still be used as a moral guide.

Should religion be so flexible?

Oh ya, Xianity accepts and is flexible to blending with anything....
(well, liberal branches are anyways)

Except Judaism. Of course.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is much that I respect about Jeffersonianism, Christian Existentialism, and Christian Deontology, all of which have their fair share of "Culturally Christian" atheists.

However, I still disagree with them, just as I disagree with other secular philosophies like Humanism and LaVeyan Satanism. I am a Utilitarian, which is incompatible with Christian virtue ethics, deontology, human rights, and Social Darwinism. These are competing ethical philosophies.

As a functionalist, I even think that my ethics is "correct" in that it is rooted in a sort of evolutionary teleology, which puts me at odds with Kant's idealism (since it is naturalistic) and with Kierkegaard's existentialism (since I posit the existence of an objective morality).

Personally, I also do not feel welcome among Christian imagery, because I know that most Christians consider atheist Christians to not be "real Christians." Honestly, I also don't see the appeal of Jesus, because to me he was just some ancient Jewish cult leader.

It can't be objective, because I can act differently. Gravity e.g. is objective, You need to check your thinking/evaluations and learn when you are subjective.
In short your system can't be objective, because people can act differently.

 

[Ella S.]

It can't be objective, because I can act differently. Gravity e.g. is objective, You need to check your thinking/evaluations and learn when you are subjective.
In short your system can't be objective, because people can act differently.

That's not what it means to have objective morality.

What is legal in the US is objective. If I kill someone and I am convicted of first-degree murder, then I have objectively broken the law.

The reason that morality can be objective is because it was evolved with a specific function: survival of the gene. It has an objective meta-purpose for existing.

Of course you can commit objectively wrong actions, but just because you can do something doesn't mean it's right.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not what it means to have objective morality.

What is legal in the US is objective. If I kill someone and I am convicted of first-degree murder, then I have objectively broken the law.

The reason that morality can be objective is because it was evolved with a specific function: survival of the gene. It has an objective meta-purpose for existing.

Of course you can commit objectively wrong actions, but just because you can do something doesn't mean it's right.

Well, yes objective in a limited sense. But morality is not objective in that sense.
As for biology the level is the individual in practice and thus if I can achieve reproduction of the fittest gene by killing you or so in reverse, both cases are within biology.
So your purpose ends up being subjective.

 

[Nakosis]

Oh ya, Xianity accepts and is flexible to blending with anything....
(well, liberal branches are anyways)

Except Judaism. Of course.

There are Messianic Jews.
Messianic Judaism - Wikipedia

 

[Sedim Haba]

There are Messianic Jews.
Messianic Judaism - Wikipedia

Not really. Not anymore. Just check out how dead the DIR is here.

 

[Ella S.]

Well, yes objective in a limited sense. But morality is not objective in that sense.
As for biology the level is the individual in practice and thus if I can achieve reproduction of the fittest gene by killing you or so in reverse, both cases are within biology.
So your purpose ends up being subjective.

I disagree that morality isn't objective in that sense. We know the function of morality, from an evolutionary perspective. We know why we developed the concepts of "purpose" and "ought." This is objective.

All moral systems ultimately derive from these biological functions. I'm just going straight to the source itself rather than dealing with counter-productive abstractions and superstitions.

Also, no, we did not evolve to kill each other. Humans are social animals. Our competitive and selfish ancestors went extinct because competition is not a good long-term survival strategy. That's why we developed morality in the first place.

Also, evolution is not about reproduction. Reproduction is a means of survival of the gene, but if you look at animals like ants or bees, many of them have been selected to be infertile.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree that morality isn't objective in that sense. We know the function of morality, from an evolutionary perspective. We know why we developed the concepts of "purpose" and "ought." This is objective.

All moral systems ultimately derive from these biological functions. I'm just going straight to the source itself rather than dealing with counter-productive abstractions and superstitions.

Also, no, we did not evolve to kill each other. Humans are social animals. Our competitive and selfish ancestors went extinct because competition is not a good long-term survival strategy. That's why we developed morality in the first place.

Also, evolution is not about reproduction. Reproduction is a means of survival of the gene, but if you look at animals like ants or bees, many of them have been selected to be infertile.

You seen to confuse the ability to objectively describe something, which is subjective with the idea that if we can describe it objectively, what we describe is objective.

 

[Ella S.]

You seen to confuse the ability to objectively describe something, which is subjective with the idea that if we can describe it objectively, what we describe is objective.

That's really not what I'm doing, but you don't believe in objectivity, anyway; I'm not sure why I'm even bothering trying to have this discussion with you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's really not what I'm doing, but you don't believe in objectivity, anyway; I'm not sure why I'm even bothering trying to have this discussion with you.

I do believe in objectivity as I treat objective reality as real. But that is a belief to me.

 

[viole]

In a world ruled by Satan, it would be expected that the world's religions are not only that flexible, but adulterated. 1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9

Since Satan killed zero people, women, children, pets, vs. your God performing all forms of genocide and atrocities possible, I would take a break to check out carefully who the real bad guy in the Bible is.

ciao

- viole

 

[YonekoClark]

This is the most sober religion in my opinion.