Is the main distinction between Christian values an atheists values, humility? I've seldom encountered an atheist who attributes a moral value to humility, but the Philokalia talks continually about how it is the most important virtue without which all others are worthless.
There are of course humble atheists, but even then they seem to find the degree of humility asked for in Christianity to be somewhat debasing and repugnant. And when they see arrogance in their fellow atheists, they look upon it more as something annoying than immoral.
>>467844
>Morality is the preserve of religion meme.
Pretty sure the bottom line of morality stems from prehistoric societies going "lets not do bad shit to each other as we mutually agree that it sucks."
Hence the fact that the Golden Rule showed up in many unrelated societies.
>There are of course humble atheists, but even then they seem to find the degree of humility asked for in Christianity
It is, it literally upholds poverty as a virtue.
>>467871
>Hence the fact that the Golden Rule showed up in many unrelated societies.
You mean like the Melian dialogue?
>It is, it literally upholds poverty as a virtue.
You don't think it's virtuous to give away all your money to the poor?
>>467844
Humility is the seventh Virtue, the one not directly connected to the Three Pronciples and arguably the most important of them because of it.
Did you crawl out from under a rock?
>>467844
>atheists values
List these off please.
Oh wait, not all atheists share the same values. Your thread is nonsense
>>467844
christians tend to brag about how charitable they are whereas atheists tend to brag about how smart they are
>>467844
There are no "atheist values".
>>468241
Is bragging about how humble you are forbidden? Because you sure sound like a cocky shit.
>>468238
They're called universal moral laws.
>Humility is a good thing
>Being meek is a good thing
>Being weak is a good thing
>Not defending yourself is a good thing
>Being chaste is a good thing
Is christianity the religion of betacucks?serious question
>>468303
If I do, then I'm sorry.
>>468336
Christianity is the religion of those who want to have a loving family full of loyalty and faith, yes. It's not the religion of gangsta rap.
>>467844
>atheist values
Does not compute. Atheism isn't a religion or a set of beliefs so atheists display a wide range of values.
I think the main difference is submission vs no submission.
>>468343
>muh fambly
Christians have fucked up families like anyone else.
>>469447
At least they don't celebrate it
>>467844
>atheists values
When will this meme end
le objective morality meme strikes again
>>469447
Orthodox families are pretty good in my experience.
>>467916
>You don't think it's virtuous to give away all your money to the poor?
Not him, but I don't. I think it's fucking retarded and absolutely pointless.
>Is the main distinction between Christian values an atheists values, humility?
Yes. Christians for instance think they are in direct contact with the source of all knowledge, something I consider highly arrogant.
Meanwhile, an atheist like David Hume accepted that he knew next to nothing and that he shouldn't be telling anyone how they ought to live their lives
>>470565
If everyone were like that, the world would be heaven.
>>470574
David Hume was a major conservative, m8. His idea of sentiment made his outlook very compatible with Burke's. The idea that morality can't have a rational basis, didn't make Hume think it was immoral to impose morality, instead it made him very skeptical of trying to change old fashioned morality even though it seemed irrational, because we can have no idea of the long-term implications.
>>470574
>Yes. Christians for instance think they are in direct contact with the source of all knowledge, something I consider highly arrogant.
this desu senpai
stop feeding this tripfag. He can't get the attention he likes in octochans /christian/ so he posts here.
filter and move on
>>467990
This
>>467844
Humility is either stupidity (lack of awareness of one's abilities) or dishonesty (denial of one's abilities). Without an ancient text telling you how great it is, I can't see why anyone would deem humility a virtue.
>>471800
If every "gave away their money to the poor" society would go back to the dark ages.
Have you ever actually MET poor people? Like the really poor ones? I have. These people fucking awful. Almost all of them have some mental or personality disorder. Most are genetically inferior as in the amount born with some weird disease or weak immune system is fairly common, they also seem to be born stupid lacking the ability to learn anything even when they are given the educational material for free.
While there are some people that are genually worthy people and just are really down on their luck, some of them are bright kids born into shitty families, etc. Most of them are trash and frankly most of them desire exactly the situation they are in because they make such terrible choices.
If these people were put on 'equal grounds' with everyone else all you would be doing is dragging society down. In economics and nature the sickly parts of the system must be allowed to die naturally.
How old was Mary when she gave birth?
>>471853
11
>>471857
>the meek will inherit the earth when all is through
I'm starting to see why Christians hate Darwin.
>its as true now as it was two thousand years ago
Which is to say it's false. Historically the societies and cultures that are most fit relative to their environment win out, this is also true within various cultural institutions, and at the genetic level. The meek end up either dying out or changing their ways, that's why they are called meek.
>eugenics
This isn't eugenics, it's the universal laws of reality (or to put it in spiritual terms. the "logos"). If a society focuses it's resources on the unproductive members than it's going to lose a society that distributes the resources better. The same is going to happen in any other science or institution you can think of. I'm sure it must sound very harsh to Christians, hence the idea of heaven and a final judgement where Nature is thrown away and through magic "the lion will lay down with lamb" rather than eating it.
>>471842
Isn't in interesting how capitalism did away with the aristocracy on the premise that the poor and middle class did not have inferior blood, but merely inferior opportunities. And now that the merchants and moneylenders have power, they revert back to blood as justification.
>>467934
Wait, are you seriously espousing the system of virtues and principles from the Ultima series?
Is your moral framework from a fucking video game?
>>471930
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_virtues
>>471853
There are no reliable sources for her age at all.
>>471916
When you look at the philophical justifications for each of the cases you see that it made perfect sense.
If we go back to medevil Europe the origenal caste system was a theological based one. While they did think there was superiority in blood this was not the basis for rule. There was a divine order and God had appointed certain men to rule and certain to follow. The priests caste enforced this by saying whether a ruler was in line with God's will or not. This would allow the papacy a powerful bargaining chip since it could excommunicate kings that did not fall in line. There was a similar power structure in the Orthodox but it worked very differently.
Than the Enlightenment was centered around a more Protestant or Deist view. The basis for equality was that people were equal in the sense that the creator had given them all a rational soul. "Truth" was what mattered and anyone could understand "truth" if they were not superstitious like the old priestly people.
Than Darwin and the early Psychologists showed us a person's mind is not entirely rational nor are they all the same.
>merchants and moneylenders have power, they revert back to blood as justification.
Success in the business world is determined by blood but at the top level even the smartest business men are just pawns. What really rules is the company itself. The corporation has become an organism that controls the very CEOs and board of directors. If a CEO is bad for the 'health' of the organism it will expel the CEO. A founder of a company may lose his own power in the name of making the organism expand.
Also on the subject of showing mercy to the poor. This too is determined by natural laws. Give the poor no mercy and they might start a revolution, give them their bread and circus and the country is stable. If ambitious poor person really isn't happy with bread and circus though he is free to devote his life to whatever he wants.
>>471930
>he doesn't know the inspiration for Ultima lore
>>471951
1) The comment of "Did you crawl out from under a rock" implies that he thought you, the tripfagging OP, was not aware of this. I.e. it is an atheist virtue system, not a religious one.
2) Note how he capitalized "Three Principles" and "Virtue". There are not "Three principles" connected to the 7 heavenly virtues, but there are 3 principles connected to the 8 Britannian ones.
http://ultima.wikia.com/wiki/Eight_Virtues
>>471978
Certain people were appointed to rule as God's vicar, but that does not mean they were infallible. They were as fallible as the kings of Israel. And being Emperor of Byzantium, while practically generally a matter of blood, did not derive any of its legitimacy from that.
> The corporation has become an organism that controls the very CEOs and board of directors
The corporation is not an independent organism, it is controlled by who owns it. These people often care very little about long-term health, they might just be short-term speculators who want a ton of people to get fired so shares can go up and they can liquidate their holdings for a quick buck.
>This too is determined by natural laws
It's determined by time-tested strategies.
>>471985
I see. My bad.
>>472192
>They were as fallible as the kings of Israel.
This isn't about fallibility, it's about who had the power. If you are "God's vicar" you have a lot of fucking power at least you would before secular became the norm.
>>467844
>Is the main distinction between Christian values an atheists values, humility? I've seldom encountered an atheist who attributes a moral value to humility, but the Philokalia talks continually about how it is the most important virtue without which all others are worthless.
No, firstly athiest morality is a tad diverse but assuming you are talking about the more American version of it humility is a key concept however it tends to be expressed in the negative in the sense its not be humble but dont be vain braggart.
>There are of course humble atheists, but even then they seem to find the degree of humility asked for in Christianity to be somewhat debasing and repugnant.
I think thats because the humility described by Christians is more accurately described as subservience to dogma and tradition.
Hence you wont see athiests bitch about helping the poor and seriously ill as being debasing but they will see kissing the hands of a priest as debasing.
>when they see arrogance in their fellow atheists, they look upon it more as something annoying than immoral.
The fact that they distance themselves and disavow them shows there is more than annoyance at play there.
Also good to see you back, Orthodoxy died while you were gone on his
