Is Atheism Detrimental to the Whole of Society?
This concept was just brought up in another discussion. I was so surprised to see it stated so bluntly.
So, I guess it is time to contemplate the ramifications of spreading Atheism in society.
Thanks!After all, God is not an abstract concept. God is a concrete reality.
And I agree with Headly Von Noggin who stated that the force / existence of God is a like a hurricane! A force we need to work with and cooperate with. A force we need to understand.
Consciously.
(And not deny.)
Uh oh, I sound like preacher!
But, I mean really...
Like scientists, we must accurately observe and decode the laws of nature, for instance.
And realize we are part of nature.You say "God is a concrete reality". Where is this statue?
Well, we might look at other countries that use the same basic democracy we do, but are primarily atheist, and how they compare financially, socially and morally.
Countries like Australia or the UK might make a good start - has rampant atheism harmed either country? Both have much lower homicide rates - is it because of or in spite of atheism? Both are more socialistic - does atheism play a part in insisting we care for and support our neighbors? Both seem at least as environmentally conscious as we are - does God's instruction that everything is for our use result in destroying the environment? Both have banned guns - does Christianity promote gun ownership? Neither appears to have the large number of mass killings (particularly of small school children) we do - is that a Christian trait that atheism could help remove from our society? We are losing our technology supremacy - is it a result of increasing atheism elsewhere in the world while we remain mired in biblical "truths"?To suggest that the western world is more secularized, and therefore their prosperity can be attributed to their secularization is the fallacy of confusing correlated data with causation.
Of course! That's why similar governmental/financial systems were specified. As near as possible, countries that are similar in all respects except the amount of atheism should be considered. Not communist, not extremely socialist, not Amazon tribal communities, not African third world villages. Just similar first world countries with varying degrees of atheism.
But even then there are other mitigating factors which you cannot control that could be the causative factors for the variations you are seeing. You are analyzing at a macro level when you should be looking at this from a meta standpoint.
This conversation was over right here. Anybody who responded was merely dancing around these facts and preaching their bias, because these are the real questions to which these answers are obvious.
I might flip it around the other way and say,
"Ok, let's look at countries who DO govern and legislate according to religious scripture. The beheading of women for the crime of being raped happens only in theocracies, does this mean theocracy promotes the mistreatment of women? Children are raised to believe things based solely on cultural dogma only in religious states, does this mean that non-secularized government deters citizens from learning science and other methods of discerning truth, while substituting nonsense and garbage talk? People who are poor and oppressed only tend to blow themselves up on crowded city busses when they have been indoctrinated and taught to believe they will be rewarded in some after life, does this mean organized religion and the certainty of life after death in a military setting is the only thing that could possibly lead to suicide bombing?But I could reply with the Nazi regime. Communist Russia. Radicals are radicals whether they are atheists or religious.
No.
And that's really all I have to say about the idea that my sincerely held philosophy is some kind of scourge.With atheism comes moral relativism. That is the acceptance of any man made rule so long as the majority agrees. Since there are no rules set in stone it has the most potential to create a society of morally ambiguous elitism. It is the most dangerous philosophy, survival of the fittest.
So, the laws of any given country are a dangerous philosophy compared with religious laws?
The laws of the land are not based on survival of the fittest, fyi.
Depends on which country we're talking about. Communist Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, any other atheist dominated country, it's survival of the fittest.
America, Europe, lots of Christianity and lots of liberty. No Christianity = no liberty. It is after all America and Europe that are paving the way for women's rights, gay rights, etc.
And yet countries have laws forbidding slavery while the bible has laws on how badly one can beat a slave.
And yet countries have laws that punish rapist while the bible simply forces her to marry the rapist.
I could go on...Most of the countries that have abolished slavery and rape have a Christian majority. In fact they are the societies which have paved the way for abolishing such practices world wide. Atheists have never done that, in fact if you care to pick up a history book you will find that they have done the exact opposite.
Of course. Whether or not people are loving is a personal choice regardless of the doctrines their culture offers.
One bus is full of atheists - and another bus (which is standing by) is full of Christians.
Now - both of these buses are heading for a picnic. If you are asked to choose between the two groups to have a picnic - which one would you choose?I would choose to go to the picnic in which both buses rendezvoused. I don't agree religions should be grounds for dividing people.
Not if He teaches his followers to make others choose between their faith and their enjoyment of picnicking with one another.
love
[ luv ]
feel tender affection for somebody: to feel tender affection for somebody such as a close relative or friend, or for something such as a place, an ideal, or an animal
---Athiests clearly feel and show love the same way that other people do, just not towards a God (or Gods).
Really? Like when he flooded the earth killing everything except one family?
Think of if you had the power and knowledge to create a world and the people disobeyed your orders or commandments. What else would you do to them?
Is that what you do to those who disobey you? Is it the only option? One would think an all powerful God would have the power to reach them all individually and simply make the ones not cooperating disappear. It's not the loving thing to do is it? God admits (according to the bible) that he is a jealous God.
No, I don't do that to people if they disobey me. I'm a human being. God has the authority to do as He pleases and deems necessary. We are not our own. We as a whole are products of His creation.
That's special pleading. Only God is allowed to kill people for a loving reason.
I can't speak for God. My duty is to obey His Word and it is your duty also. I can't speak for those who disobey Him either. God has all the power. If you know who has the power to stop God then let me know who he or she is. This is my final response to this forum. Be blessed!
Yes, it was the consequence of WILLFUL unimaginable transgressions against God and nature. So much so that God felt the need to wipe the slate clean. It must have been an act of mercy. He is behind the scenes because he gave us free will. Free will must be managed rightly!
"Really? Like when he flooded the earth killing everything except one family?"
These are stories. I don't see any reason to think that they are any true than alice in wonderland.
But love is something real. And love is the pinnacle of the consciousness that we call God.
Love is God. God is love.'A PRODIO Thread [a new take on human spirituality]'
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/122411"Right, so you admit the bible is only stories. Good we can move on from here."
Yes, Bible is mostly comprised of stories. But those stories (not all of them) have value."Value, sure I can agree with that. The problem lies when someone thinks the stories are factual."
The problem also lies when someone wittingly refuses to accept that those stories have their value.
http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2598309
Neither, I'll take my minivan. It's more comfortable for the kids.
Now, I would like you to define love from a scientific standpoint, and explain why it is a morally good emotion.
I think the patience with which we are engaging with your bigoted statements reflects the best kind of love -- specifically tolerance.
Yet it is the non-believers in society that force the Christian majority to better their morals. To, in this specific case, dump the idea of slavery.
Atheists have never done it because slavery was dumped everywhere before there was a atheist society to dump it. Probably because it is such a egregious moral offense it doesn't need an atheist majority - enough Christians come to understand that god's book is just wrong here that the practice dies.Well, I looked that up. Perhaps it's something you should have done before making that comment.
3rd century BC: Ashoka abolishes slave trade.
221-206 BC: The Qin Dynasty’s measures to eliminate the landowning aristocracy include the abolition of slavery.
17: Wang Mang, first and only emperor of the Xin Dynasty usurped the Chinese throne and instituted a series of sweeping reforms, including the abolition of slavery.
1200: Slavery virtually disappears in Japan.
1368: China's Hongwu Emperor establishes the Ming dynasty and would abolish all forms of slavery.
1850: In the United States, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 requires the return of escaped slaves to their owners.
1863: In the United States, Abraham Lincoln signs the Emancipation Proclamation which declared slaves in Confederate-controlled areas to be freed.
1865: December: U.S. abolishes slavery.I got news for you China still has slaves, America doesn't. Thanks to those crazy right wing Republicans.
1906: China formally abolishes slavery effective 31 January 1910.
And yet to this day the Chinese government houses hundreds if not thousands of forced labor camps for political dissidents and criminals. Not to mention the countless government sanctioned sweatshops they have, a practice that includes child labor, low wages, long hours, no extra pay for overtime, etc. Things that have ceased to exist in America. Oh yeah then there's the one child policy, and the totalitarian government. Please go on about how much more enlightened and superior the people of China are to the Western world.
Nope, that's not what I've done at all. I've showed you that many predominately non christian nations have gotten rid of slavery long before predominately non christian nations. What did help was the secularization of nations.
You did no such thing. None-christian countries have been banning slavery way before the Christian south was forced to.
Your argument is the personification of moral ambiguity, and half truths. But it's okay for you to lie because you have no set book of standards. Whereas if I lie it's actually a bad thing and I will be held accountable by God and my Christian piers.
So you are implying that the Northern States weren't Christian. -False
China doesn't have thousands of slaves, sweat shops, labor camps, etc. -False
The reality is when a Christian society decides to make laws that are contrary to the dictates of the Bible they have to deal with the consequences of their errors, and duly correct them. This is because the laws in the Bible are a constant. Particularly the moral code of the New Testament. And others can point out their short comings.
Atheists on the other hand, can be carried like a reed through the wind with any convenient form of worldly doctrine that suits them. There are no after life consequences for wrong doing, there is only the morality invented by those who support their own baseless theories on right and wrong. Majority rules, survival of the fittest, eat or be eaten. You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the Discovery channel...
Face it dude, you experience freedom because lots and lots of Christians said you could.I agree. We have freedom because of the boundaries which protect it. The boundaries were erected/ established by Christians, and Jews as well, through their belief systems.
Sure, like during the middle ages. Do you really understand what freedom is? Please do some research.
What is freedom? It is based on perspective. What is yours? Did you live in the middle ages in your last life?
You prove my point, we can look back at bad Christians and know they were wrong based on a moral constant.
But for you morality is fluid. Eight years ago it was perfectly acceptable to vote in a president who was a proponent of traditional marriage, and that's what we did. Then he changed his mind. Lousy Christian, Good secularist.
Of course the secularists in America were fine with it until eight years ago. Liberals do tend to rouse up anger in special interest groups. Blacks, Latinos, Gays, Women, whoever they can get to jump on the bandwagon.
"Your argument is the personification of moral ambiguity, and half truths. But it's okay for you to lie because you have no set book of standards. Whereas if I lie it's actually a bad thing and I will be held accountable by God and my Christian piers."
Some atheists do have a set book of standards. Just not yours.
"The reality is when a Christian society decides to make laws that are contrary to the dictates of the Bible they have to deal with the consequences of their errors, and duly correct them. This is because the laws in the Bible are a constant. Particularly the moral code of the New Testament. And others can point out their short comings.
Atheists on the other hand, can be carried like a reed through the wind with any convenient form of worldly doctrine that suits them. There are no after life consequences for wrong doing, there is only the morality invented by those who support their own baseless theories on right and wrong. Majority rules, survival of the fittest, eat or be eaten. You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the Discovery channel...
First of all, what in the world does this have to do with the topic? All this communicates is 'my ideas are better than yours and you do awful things.'
You do realize that you're taking every atheist and shoving them into a metaphorical box you have created which defines every atheist out there? You think you know how every atheist thinks and does not think? Is that not a little narrow-minded? I know a damn good amount of atheists who do not think or do a single thing you just posted.
"Face it dude, you experience freedom because lots and lots of Christians said you could. "
Are you talking about Christians fighting for freedom in wars? Because if you are...
Might want to stop and think before your own words disgrace the God you claim you serve.IMO This was his point and it is appropriate. "...the laws in the Bible are a constant. Particularly the moral code of the New Testament." His post has nothing what-so-ever to do with fighting or anything else. It has to do with following a prescribed and valid set of moral codes for the good of the whole of society. Thankfulness for Jesus is the only attitude we should have. Thank God for Jesus coming to this beautiful planet and trying to keep it that way.
Whoever wants to proclaim that God and The new testament are a myth, have it your way.
It is not mine.
- just sharin'."This was his point and it is appropriate. "...the laws in the Bible are a constant. Particularly the moral code of the New Testament." His post has nothing what so ever to do with fighting or anything else. It has to do with following a prescribed and valid set of moral codes for the good of the whole of society. Thankfulness for Jesus is the only attitude we should have. Thank God for Jesus coming to this beautiful planet and trying to keep it that way."
If that was actually what he said, it would have been an ok or appropriate thing to say. You missed half of the other presumptions therein.
In doing so, he made narrow-minded claims about every single atheist on the planet, describing arrogantly how he assumed they all acted, and presenting Christians as always following the morals they supposedly believe. I think he is doing a good job of tossing out those same morals himself.Edit / what is going on today is very frustrating.
It didn't used to be this way.
Believe me.
Thank you Kathryn, I think Ashtonfirefly is having a hard time keeping up with the conversation.
Thank you for the underhanded insult, but I don't take bait. Sorry.
As I explained to Kathryn, that is not ALL you said. If you had said simply that, it would be different. But you didn't. Please see my comment for further explanation. Repeating myself is not necessary.Well I'm sorry if you are insulted by the truth. But if you would like to prove me wrong, by all means please tell me by what set book of standards do Atheists follow? Saul Alinsky? The Communist Manifesto? Origin of the species? Where do you get your morality?
"Well I'm sorry if you are insulted by the truth. But if you would like to prove me wrong, by all means please tell me by what set book of standards do Atheists follow? Saul Alinsky? The Communist Manifesto? Origin of the species? Where do you get your morality?"
Well that's the whole point. We disagree on what is true. I was not personally insulted. How could I be? I'm not atheist.
If you are referring to my statement that your "A is having a hard time keeping up with the conversation" was an insult, then my answer is the same. I wasn't insulted. (Hence, the "I don't take bait?") I was pointing out that you were attempting to insult me and that it was juvenile in the context of a discussion.
I just felt it was slightly unfair to say that ALL atheists behave without a set moral standard. Some may not have a particular book, or Bible, or any such thing, but I think it hardly accurate to say that atheists do not follow a set system of morality. Whether or not it is contained in a book is irrelevant. From what they have discussed with me, theirs is a system of morality which is founded on what they believe to be a natural conscience or moral standard. The Bible is not the only system of morality. Some feel that there is a moral compass that applies to either them or all of society (it depends on who you speak to.)
In comparison, do Christians really have a set book of standards? Each Christian interprets the Bible differently and applies it to their own life differently. If a set moral standard of rules exists, then what is the point of it if its absolute meaning is not respected? So is this not similar to what I am describing concerning atheists?
In other words, your words may apply to some atheists, but not all.
Therefore the conclusions you drew will not apply to all.
I hope that clarifies.Sorry, we are able to think for ourselves. You can however if you like continue to hate homosexuals, beat your slaves and kill your disobedient children however it may land you in prison.
"...the laws in the Bible are a constant." Are they? !!!!! Please show me how. Where in that bible does it declare that all those laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus must be applied to, and obey by, ME, in the 21st century?
Even the "Ten Commandments" are not clear in their meaning or their intent, unless one studies the history and cultural backgrounds of those days, thousands of years ago.
I have a moral compass within me. For sure, I did have a "christian" background, but that is not what makes me observe certain codes of practice today. Christianity of itself does not make a person "good." It is simply a belief system conjured up by people who like to be religious.... and who love to judge others with a perception of superiority over those whom they judge. Yes, it gives the believer a compass for his/her own life, that is fine. But it's a personal compass. It cannot be placed upon the shoulders of anyone else without their wish and permission.
Not accepting the existence of "God" does NOT make me a bad person. I take responsibility for my own actions, and have no one else to whom I can pass the buck. What I do in this life is the most important consideration for me. There is nothing after death that I need to worry about, except in how my actions might continue to affect those that I leave behind.
So, Onusonus, please stop judging me for having an a-theist opinion.
Sounds like a very conservative person talking... one who is totally against socialism.
Is there any place in your mind for giving help and comfort those who are less fortunate than yourself? Someone who has tried hard to get a job, but has found that no one will take him on, because he's "black," or "deaf," or simply too old? Do you regard every one who is destitute as having go there by his/her own fault? You cannot stomach the idea of socialist principles, can you?
You claim to be morally superior to people who have atheist opinions, simply because you believe in a fictitious god of your own mental gymnastics. Is this not gross arrogance? This is another example of why I have turned away from the religion of pseudo-christianity.You left Christianity because of guys like me? That's kind of like not going to the gym because of all the fat people.
So now please tell me how Christlike it is to forcefully steal money from one group of people and give it to another.When a democratic government decides to collect taxes, then share the proceeds fairly amongst the less fortunate members of that society, it is not "stealing." How ever you came to such a conclusion I cannot say. But you need to think carefully about what you do believe..... there is some illogical, biased stuff coming out which does not even equate with being "christ-like."
It is simply not like that… it is not like that at all.
Sorry, Kathryn, with respect, but I did feel a very judgmental aspect of Onusonus coming through here, which is not exactly what you would call a "caring" spirit. IMHO.
(I have come indoors to the warm for a mid-morning cup of coffee and cake....care to join me?)- sure, Johnny... sounds great.
I wish you would not say we as believers somehow judge YOU. We all have a sense of justice and fairness and I believe our moral compass is built within us as humans.
Sometimes in some cases, the compass is crushed. Some do not get to protect theirs. They are the ones to be concerned about.Ok, admittedly not all christians set out to judge, but my question(s) is(are): "Does morality come packaged within Christianity?"
Is a person more "moral" by virtue of his/her status within christianity?
Are there some christians who are less "moral" than some who do not profess christianity?
What of the so-called christians who hide behind a smoke-screen of christianity, and continue on with an immoral life anyway?1. Does morality come packaged… what do you mean 'packaged?"
2. I do not comprehend "status."
3. Some of the less "moral" people I know were those indoctrinated harshly into Catholicism. I have also witnessed that some Catholics go through the rituals on Sunday and then forget it all during the week. Or they go to Confession and then go and do it again the next chance they get. There is some disconnect form their experience at church… or lack of true experience at church... and their daily lives.
4. The smoke screen of piousness? and show up at church on Sunday when all the while they are harboring and forcing sex with girls they have kidnapped and are keeping in their house. Huge disconnect between conscience and actions. That guy killed himself once he was caught and in jail. I really would like to know more about that scenario in a case study kind of way. Wouldn't you? It is all baffling. I am not the one to answer these questions. Don't forget, I am not for religiosity, mindless rituals, or associated dogmas. Just the essence of religion and the truth behind it. Some want to throw the baby (God) out with the bathwater (all the crap you mention). Just throw out the crap.
Clearer thought: Atheism can be seen as a kind of enzyme eating away the crap. Ha ha ha! In that way atheists are Good for Society! Yay! common ground! Thank You, Jonnycomelater on his virtual surfboard sans wetsuit! I knew you were cool like that!
This is a tough one to answer. Jesus once said, "If you, being evil, are able to give good things to your children, how much more can my Father give you who believe." (paraphrased) Jesus is speaking to people in this quote. Morality is within everyone, (In my opinion). That doesn't make everyone moral because many refuse to be moral. I am sure after a certain length of time that those who refuse to be moral will lose the ability to be moral. Like having their conscience seared with a hot iron.
When a person comes to Christ, a change starts taking place. The person will be a new creature in Christ. It isn't an overnight change. I am still changing myself even after 17 years as a believer in Christ. So my answer would be no.
My answer here would be yes. Some Christians don't care how they talk, what they do or who they hurt just the same as unbelievers.
The bible says you reap what you sow. If someone confesses to be a christian but is not, then that person is a liar and cannot be trusted. The Bible gives us guidelines to go by. It also states to test the spirits and see if they are of God. I could say they most likely will end up in hell but then I will be accused of judging and labeled as such.
In the end, God will judge all people. He has the first and the final say in all things.In this instant I have no judgment of you for saying that Sir Dent. As you know, I don't accept the idea that there is a "god" or a "heaven" or a "hell" for me following my death. So it's pointless arguing on that score.
All of that belief system is, for me, a concoction of the human mind. However, whether there is/was some entity that you could term a "designer," or "creator" of this finite universe we find ourselves in, I cannot say.
The two hypotheses are separate in my view. The Creator and the Judge. I reject the latter, give possibility to the former. Anyway, either of those is dependent on human perception.
Being charitable means digging in your own pockets and giving to the poor, not hiring a politician to dig in someone else's. The very idea of class warfare breaks two of God's top ten no-no's. Don't covet other people's possessions, and don't steal. That is what we call a moral absolute.
So the good Christian doesn't want to help pay for educating the people or building infrastructure?
"Now there are no non-Christian Republicans. This is an amazing fact, there are 278 Republicans in Congress. They are now all Christian and all white except for one black senator who was appointed. So this is an entirely Christian, white party." ~ Bill Mayer - June 13 commenting on Dave Brat's win over Eric Cantor.
Republicans AREN'T monolithic. There are Christian Republicans, Conservative Republicans, Liberal Republicans, Moderate Republics, LBGT Republicans, Atheist Republicans and so on.
What about Democratic Republicans? Or is that an oxymoron?
Not, human beings are complex and there is no one label. We have varied aspects within ourselves.
Very true.
So, if I am gay; if I agree with collecting taxes and distributing some of the surplus to the less fortunate in society; if I support free enterprise and taking a few risks in order to potentially earn more profit; if I don't give a hoot about any god making judgment of me after my death.....in all these cases I remain a worthwhile member of the World's community, to be accepted and respected?What is due a man, is kindness. His heaven is within. End of story. (Of course, that man also owes others their due... which is kindness. As long as you are being kind to others, all is well!) IN MY OPINION.
You don't matter. This comment was clearly talking about congressmen. You wouldn't matter anyways because clearly you're not adept at reading posts and discerning their meaning. Then again, maybe you should be a senator.
Hard to differentiate between "man made rules" and "priest made rules", except of course the "priest made rules" always seem to benefit the priests more than the common man.
In the end, though, all of man's rules come from man. It may take centuries or even millennium to eradicate the damage done by the priests setting themselves up as man's moral guidelines, but it can and will be done. We've seen it too many times to think differently - slavery, women's rights, gay rights, etc. have all resulted from the general population wresting control from the priests.Exactly. Whether you see that as unfettered choice, or free will as provided by God, in the end it comes down to us.
Moral relativism has actually wormed its way into many religious traditions as well, so I don't think this can be blamed on atheism.
Well I looked at this in reverse. What good has Atheism ever done society - ever?
(I have no qualms with atheism)
I can think of Mother Theresa and all the good she did in her faith. But I cannot think of one good thing ever done in the name of Atheism. Dawkins would be an example of a hard core atheist never doing one good thing for man kind because he is motivated by antitheism. Einstein, Darwin, Bronowski, Descartes and so many more did not do anything in the name of atheism.
Name an atheist who did good work in the name of atheism?Eric, is it necessary to do anything "in the name of any "...ism?"
Cannot our deeds be done appropriately, in context, with sincerity, and with due consideration of one's neighbour, without attaching some religious motivation to it?
This presumption that if you are christian, then you contribute more to the betterment of society than if you are not christian.... this to me is totally false.The point is that if you are treating your neighbour badly because you are atheist, you are giving a bad example. And no one can escape being an example for their religious (or areligious) group.
A lot of atheists I've met seem to be more selfish than many other religious groups, which has led me to hypothesise that atheism is only relevant in the "first world". That kind of selfishness only works with an abundance of resources.Ha, look at the Christian a page back that doesn't want to pay his taxes and then come and talk to me about sharing.
Christianity has had its entire charity system perverted into donating the "charity" to the churches, mainly to buy new pews and stained glass windows.
The issue with religions is something Voltaire pointed out a long time ago: Knowledge is power, but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The people in charge of religious knowledge are much more likely to pervert teachings into things that favour their own situation.
Now that the barriers to all education, not just religious teachings, are eroding, you will find that corruption going down to the individual person, whether it is an atheist who rejects religion and decides to be selfish because he has decided to reject morality, or whether it's a Christian who takes verses out of context in order to cheat the government.
But if I can legally avoid paying taxes to the US government then I will do so, because it's an ethical dilemma knowing that my money is going to fund a prison system where rape is encouraged and the senseless murders of innocents in third world countries."whether it is an atheist who rejects religion and decides to be selfish because he has decided to reject morality"
Sorry, atheists may reject religion but that doesn't make them immoral.Funny, you do understand that one measure of ones ethics is there ability to stay out of prison. As it turns out while atheists make up almost 20% of North America and make up less then 1% of prisons.
I also read that in an article long ago. The same article indicated that Catholics comprised over 64% of those incarcerated. The idea that atheism is equated with immorality is an atavistic premise indeed.
Why would we do things in the name of Atheism? We might do good things in the name of humanity.
You may want to have another look at what Mother Theresa was up to.Rad,
You make my point -- I do not think anyone does anything productive in the name of atheism. But I think we can agree that there is much negative (against) action coming from atheists.But Atheists do good, we just don't need to feel we have to. See the difference. When people do good in the name of their religion they are doing it for selfish reasons. If you however do good for the sake of doing good then you have done good because you know it's good.
What negative actions are coming from atheists?
You, are an <personal attack snipped>. Mother Theresa took money from Criminals all over the world in order to build hundreds of convents in her own name. She caused pain and suffering for millions of people by preaching that poverty was a "gift from God", and need not be rectified. She greatly decreased the rise of feminism, and last but not least, she didn't even believe in God. You don't know anything about anything that you're talking about, eh?
Think of all the wickedness done in the name of religion. Atheism, is just a single respond to a single question: Does God exists? And it says "of course not, you're an adult and that's silly as hell." So you can see how nobody would do anything in the name of it, it's not a thing to be doing things in the name of. I would do something great for the sake of my wife or child, or even another human being whom I didn't know but needed help. None of these things would have anything to do with the fact that I think believe in God, ESPECIALLY the ridiculous Santa Clause of Christianity, is silly as hell.
Doing something in the name of atheism would be looking doing something in the name of not believing in big foot. What? I'm going to feed the homeless because I think that believing in big foot is silly. No.
Religious people do good things usually because humans naturally feel empathy and compassion, the same reason as non religious people. If a religious person does go out and feed the homeless or whatever, and they are doing it entirely because they think they'll be rewarded after death with heaven, then they're not even doing it for a good reason anyways. They're actually just being selfish and concerned with their own fate.Calling me an idiot to begin a long rant is an interesting method of causing people not to take your rant seriously. If I can help you with that delivery method just give me a call.
Ranting against me and Mother Theresa in the same opening paragraph is a real feather in my cap, thank you. I "give" my money to criminals (IRS) so taking it from them is a step up though.
The rest just confirms what I said. Thank you.
Extremism is what hurts society. The atheists I've met who were extreme and unrelenting in their views, calling for the eradication of religious traditions by either forcefully deconverting people or killing them, are the ones I worry about. The same goes with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus....
But if someone just doesn't believe in God (whether by my crude understandings or someone else's), that's fine. I don't think it's going to hurt society. What would hurt society is forcing them into the position of a hypocrite, someone who has to pretend to believe when they honestly do not.Just to make it clear, although I am of an atheist opinion, does not mean I close my eyes or mind to any other points of view. For example, I do have a bible on my bookshelf (the King James version,) and do find interesting "life lessons" within it.
For example, if you read Luke 23, with a bit of 22 to keep it in context of the situation, you will find any one of us there in the midst of that crowd.
"I" might be one of the Priest, that feels threatened by a leader that stirs up the people. He has been preaching stuff that un-nerves me, questions what I tell my congregation, questions the whole basis of what I preach.
"I" might be Pilot himself, coming to the conclusion that this man they are accusing, and whom they want me to crucify, is not such a bad guy after all, but I will go along with the crowd's wishes if they press me..... don't want Rome to hear of my failing to keep control.... might lose my job or my head!
"I" might be just one of the crowd, here for the spectacle and wanting the blood of someone to get me worked up and excited. A death is just the thing. (Was it not this emotion that drove the lynch mobs.... mostly good christian members of the community .... to string up Afro-American slaves for the slightest misdemeanour?)
"I" might be Herod or one of his band of upstarts......having a bit of sadistic fun with this weirdo that's been targeted by the crowd. If he's going to die anyway, why not have our fun? (Who, claiming a strong relationship with a god, would be willing to stand up and defend a homosexual person that was being set upon and bullied by a local gang in the street?)
Probably the worst hat I could wear, would be that of hypocrite - claiming to be an upright, fair and respected member of the community, yet hating this man for telling the truths which go right to the heart of my conscience. I know I have some nasty secrets which most people don't know about, but this man has seen right through my fancy dress and called me out.... it hurts, and he has got to go.... I don't want to hear any of what he has been saying.
So, you see.... I don't accept any of the beliefs about this book or this man being some special envoy coming from a "god." But I do see real, down-to-earth lessons in it, and not just the parts I have referenced. These lessons need to be seen, understood and heeded by anyone who thinks he/she has a special mission to convert others to what they believe.
When ever we point one finger at another individual, there are 3 fingers pointing backwards to ME!.
I think atheism will probably be the eventual savior of society. It allows for the mind to cast off superstition and beliefs that keep it from progressing.
I wasn't always an atheist. I grew up moderate/liberal Christian, had to question those ideas as a young man - traveled - explored other ways of life for a while (like living in India and studying Hinduism) and realized that was no better - worse perhaps because although it claims to be the eternal law - it's followers are happy to see human beings shuffled into classes, the lowest of which it was fine to abuse and harm. I was disillusioned to find that my lofty impression of Gandhi could easily be trampled by learning some little-known facts about the man.
That's when religion began to drop away in earnest. I didn't make a decision to become an atheist- my mind just finally rose above it. That was a turning point in my life - toward incredible happiness - but I didn't know that until later.
True athiests live in the day - in the now. Because we do that - we can live fully - we are not bound by superstition.
That said - I have numerous Christian friends, some of whom have commented that if they knew they would be as happy as I am - they would consider giving up their beliefs. I tell them it doesn't work that way. You don't choose - your mind simply arrives at that conclusion through no help or coercion.
Whereas I used to frown at the idea that Jesus called the Parisees "children of the devil," and Hitler used those words (among others) to justify genocide of Jews, I no longer worry about those kinds of things. Jesus wasn't real. The story is nice - when you leave out the bad parts - but it's not real.
I don't try to convince anyone else of what to - or not to - believe - they are on their own path.
I'm just very happy that I found the path I found. It's truly opened my eyes and allowed me to appreciate the world in much greater depth.I am not an atheist, and I really don't care if anyone is an atheist as long as they don't get preachy about it. As with any belief, it is the desire to crusade against and crush opposing views that leads to detrimental results.
Q. What exactly are the "detrimental results?"
A. The impinging on another's right to think and discern the truth for themselves.
Dictating to others about what they should or should not believe, (no matter if their belief is right or wrong, real or delusional, supported by facts or just wishful thinking…) is not kind. What is kindness? Having enough respect to allow another to make up his own mind, do his own research and lead himself to the watering hole of his choice. Maybe I like the trees around this watering hole better than that one over there where you are. All watering holes have water. Please let us choose which ever watering hole we want.
Offering opinions and sharing beliefs is another matter entirely.
But saying one MUST believe such and such is Taboo.
TWISI
So it seems we have reached the conclusion (at least Yours Truly has) that Atheism, as presented by a specific group of people in the United States, is in direct confrontation with Christianity as presented by a specific group of people in the United States. Individual persons confront each other across a Wall, that is erected expressly for the purpose of throwing rocks at each other across the wall.
Just supposing you don't need to be anti-each other. Supposing it does not matter whether there is/is not a god. Supposing it is of no consequence whether anyone accepts/does not accept the premise of Original Sin, or the need to be Saved. Just supposing each of us has the freedom to explore life as we find it and, when the urge takes us, we just look for other possibilities, without having to take on board any set-in-concrete premise.
Then it's ok to take down that Wall. Cease the need to throw rocks. Talk quietly with each other, over a coffee or chai or beer. Share views. Work for a common cause.
This would, of course, remove the fun of confrontation. Yet it could pave the way for a better world, don't you think?After the beginning of keyboarding to others on the internet, (Originally, it was the Grateful Dead enthusiasts in San Francisco,) polite etiquette in chat rooms and such started to diminish. Gradually over time, it became a situation of almost NO Etiquette what-so-ever! It is slightly different here on HP because of the strict boundaries. However, people are getting sneaky at releasing their grudges and their psychological ruts that they have never found a way out of. It is too bad. But that is the way it is. We who want and expect the ideal are getting the short end of the stick, as we always have and always will. There is no help for it. Sadly.
According To What I Have Observed
PS Yes, I posted this topic. I wish it would go away. I often end up feeling this way after I post something controversial. I don't know what comes over me… some sort of psychological rut .. I guess. either that or:
The Devil Made Me Do It.With all fairness, you can't help if people respond disrespectfully to one another. You posted a controversial topic, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have posted it in order to initiate respectful debate. It's a good, interesting topic that is capable of being discussed in a level-headed, logical, respectful manner. You can post about ponies and rabbits and rainbows and people will still find something to be disrespectful and rude about.
Time is up on this one… for me anyway.
Rabbits aren't fluffy enough. What chain of command do I take this up with!?!?
I think everything has a cause and effect to it. A lot depends on what is actually real. A lot of what Atheism does in terms of possibly hurting anyone, is that they may be hurting themselves at the very least. In spreading or evangelizing it to others, it could be potentially hurting others in the same way they are hurting themselves, but it is in an area that is very personal, not on the societal level usually.
The denial of or a lack of belief in a god, need not hurt society at all necessarily, and especially if they were good people. I don't know that that is the case though. Its a choice like any other choice we have with cause and effect to it.
I think its more of something to watch for all of us, on the other hand. What happens to a society if the members of said society only answer to themselves and what they want at any time? Not all people that answer only to themselves, really want pure good and freedom for all people for all times. If materialist based view is a true way to view the world in a realistic way, then we are kind of at the whim of our wants and desires. Those can go "south", which could be viewed as a plus to another. We can see where in history that can break down, even in more recent history like this last century.
I think it is possibly better to consider views that are reflective of our reality, our human existence, science, history, etc. This is what we each are faced with. While it seems ok at first glance to pick a view that seems inconsequential at first, like a smorgasbord of food, lol, really each view either does or does NOT reflect our human experience and the world. This isn't free from consequences anymore than picking something illogical is free from consequences in any other area of life. I think whatever is absolutely true, will stand up to scrutiny and match reality. Regardless of if we approve or like whatever it is.Yes, I can see how the propagation of reason, logic, morals and ethics can really hurt others. Actually, I can't see that at all. You'll need to explain it.
Sorry, but a lack of belief in any god does not lead to acting on the whims of our wants and desires, they are not linked together in any way other than by the irrational belief that a believers god has all the answers in regards to morality. Certainly, the Abrahamic god has few if any morals to teach.
That would be secularism, in which everyone has equal rights and freedoms, but that kind of society does not bode will with believers because they are at a loss to tell people how to behave and what to believe, despite the fact they try to take away the rights and freedoms of others as a result.We have two world views. One is based on the writing of slave owners a few thousand years ago and dictate how badly one can beat a slave and how to kill children for being disobedient, the other based on our current knowledge of the human condition and how to not cause harm to each other. You pick.
I disagree, and I have picked a view. I understand you are sharing your personal views on another view, or beliefs of that view. I have tried in the past to explain what my views to you and others are, but you are allowed to have any view you like of my views, whether or not I agree with them. (Or whether or not they reflect reality of them.)
So I guess you are going with the slave owner's view on ethics then.
No. That is your view of my view talking there. My view is different from how you are saying it is. My view actually is the best view I have found, regarding freedom in every way for all humans for all time. If you are into freedom, you would actually like my views, properly understood. I am happy to answer any questions you might have about my views.
Freedom? I guess your world view must not be based on the slave owner book?
No, my views are not based on a slave holder book.
The views I hold and the reason I became a Christian, were because I responded to what I heard about Jesus, what he did and said. I think Jesus got it right. His take on things ring true to me more than anything else I have found, since testing it hard. If Jesus was real and telling and showing the truth, I think things would look exactly as they do. So much is explained that nothing else explains, to me.
This the most base form of what I believe. All the reasons why, the proofs, and why I think it's the most reasonable of the other options are varied and many.What did you test hard?
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill,"
If Jesus is God, whatever He taught has to be true. Therefore we can trust the accuracy of the Old Testament Scriptures on issues of slavery, history, science, and moral instruction.Well, I tested for instance many of the things atheists and others bring up against Christianity. The things brought up are true or not. So I looked and researched those individual things.
You and I have a different understanding of the laws and history recorded in the Old Testament, which to me explains the disconnect you are touching on.
For example , IF you really thought that being a believer in Jesus and his words MEANT that you must keep and beat slaves a certain way and sometimes kill rebellious kids, then I can easily see your rejection of that. I wouldn't agree with such an assessment though. Some act like they think that is true, but I have to really wonder at that.
As for Jesus and where we disagree, I think he explains some of the confusion in other passages. Like he sums up all the law and the prophets in the two greatest commandments. I think you and I disagree some on what the purpose is of the texts from four thousand years prior. Which is fine and explains our differing views some to me.Do you believe the bible to be true? Keep in mind, it does not make sense to say some of it is and other parts are not. I would assume its the very definition of cherry picking to say Jesus walked the earth and performed miracles and hold that as FACT as stated by the bible, but then say stoning witches/killing disobedient children/marrying your rapist victim because you raped her is open for interpretation.
If you haven't already, can you clarify the parts you believe to be true and false? I do not think anyone can choose the good things to be true and discount the bad completely and still expect to be taken seriously in a discussion. Its one thing to admit that bad things, but to ignore/write them off completely is delusional.A sentence usually consists of more than one word, especially if it is trying to make a point. Otherwise, its nonsense.
If you agree with Radman, then you could take the examples I gave to him to be for yourself and we can go from there. Edit:
In fairness to him I don't know for sure he holds the view I presented, thus the "if" in it. He might think Christians should be doing all the same things, since he brings up slavery a lot for example. I haven't heard back from him on that yet.
Let's start there, and that would be keeping with the conversation we are having.
Edit: As for what is true in the bible, I think the various writers over the thousands of years did their best to share Israel's history, gods interaction as a group with them, psalms and songs, prophecy and wisdom literature that is there. I take each portion as I think the author intended them to be read. I think we should do that with all literature though I suppose doing it another way is possible but I don't think it's the best to do.I believe RadMan's point is that if you hold the bible to be credible, you must hold it ALL as credible and not choose what to believe in. He brings up slavery alot because its in the bible, there are people who say you should live by the bible because they think it is true, yet I am pretty positive they dont have slaves in their basement or kill their promiscuous daughters who aren't married yet. When asked about that, they deflect the question, a little like you did with me since you did not give me a clear cut answer as to what you hold to be true in the bible, or they just ignore the question completely.
I cant really imagine a situation where writing about how to sell your daughter as slave can be interpreted as anything other than how to sell your daughter as a slave.It seems you have possibly misunderstood me. I do think its true that any had slaves back in the day and had laws reflecting that. A couple of things here. First I have nothing to deflect. I am responding to what seems to be suggested, that I am somehow inconsistent (or worse) for being a follower of Jesus and not doing something else in the Old Testament.
Am I misunderstanding?
Consider this, that even in Jesus' day he didn't have a slave nor command people to. I was not drawn to be a Christian by the Old Testament laws for the Israelites.
I think a lot was descriptive and not "prescriptive" for much of the Old Testament. If Jesus had commanded the same things or had slaves or killed adulterous women, i wouldn't follow that guy. The reasons why matter. Do you think I am inconsistent somehow still with this explanation, and if so, can you explain how I would be?
Do you take any ancient literature speaking of such things as slavery, to mean that If you believe it, you must take on some particular belief or action?
It seems to be presented though like we are breaking apart a list of commands like we would be breaking apart say the constitution or some other document, if some kept some laws and not others, then one could maybe say there is inconsistency. I admit some people that want slaves have abused what is in the bible for a kind if twisting around of things. The reasons why this is, matters to me, the particulars matter. I and many others covered all the reasoning recently in another thread.
The reasons why people aren't keeping slaves in a basement seem obvious to me, and don't include denying part of the scriptures as true. I think other histories are also true that speak of slavery. If I am off on what you are talking about, let me know, but I hope this helps to understand where I'm coming from.
All you have to do is look at the countries in history whose governments and leaders were atheists, state atheism, and you have your answer.
Was "the evil empire" a good thing, was red China a good thing? A slew of communist states were all based on atheism, why aren't they the greatest nations on earth? How about Nazi Germany? To the contrary they are all the authors of the greatest inhumanities committed on earth. I suppose Cuba or North Korea would float the atheists' boat? Ultimately the spread of atheism will lead to an atheist government and history bears witness that can not be a good thing. And no surprise, as without God who is to decide what is moral and what is immoral and why? There can be no universal absolutes to an atheist. For atheists whoever has the power over others can dictate whatever agenda he wishes, there is nothing in their philosophy that demands respect for the truth, for human rights, for democratic principles and this has been demonstrated throughout the world in history and into modern times.
Hey! Guess what? The Nazis had belt buckles that said "Gott Mitt Uns" on them. Do you know what that means in German?
And it is no surprise that you would try to use such an artifact to assert that Hitler and the Nazi regime believed in God which is totally absurd. Christianity remained the dominant religion in Germany through the Nazi period and many "nazis" had a hard time forsaking it but its influence over Germans displeased the Nazi hierarchy. Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition". Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs', 'abortions in black cassocks'".
During Hitler's dictatorship, more than 6,000 clergymen, on the charge of treasonable activity, were imprisoned or executed. The same measures were taken in the occupied territories; in French Lorraine, the Nazis forbade religious youth movements, parish meetings, scout meetings, and church assets were taken. Church schools were closed, and teachers in religious institutes were dismissed. The episcopal seminary was closed, and the SA and SS desecrated churches, religious statutes and pictures. 300 clergy were expelled from the Lorraine region, monks and nuns were deported or forced to renounce their vows. That is from wikipedia, your reference of choice Zellkiiro! Nazi Germany was absolutely an atheist state and your sneaky little quips won't change that fact.
I guess believing a magic man in the sky who has the power to create everything from nothing but can't get a book dictated properly makes much more sense then...
I cant really understand how anyone can talk about god and proper morals. If I followed the bible word for word, I would be a child murdering slave owner who rapes and marries women left and right. But due to a little thing called common sense, I do none of those. Not because god tells me not to, but because I doubt I myself would like to be raped or owned against my will.
Simple logic that has nothing to do with god. Imagine that? Atheism is not a cause, its a state of mind. To say atheism is bad because some of the worst criminals in history were atheistic is saying that every single person who is an atheist is on the same level as them, which is clearly insane.You think you are good at putting words in my mouth and making conclusions that are not implied, but then that is what we always see when one tries to reason with an atheist besides changing the subject when they can't refute the truth.What I said about atheism cannot be refuted - and all I said was we have evidence of what an atheist government has been like in the past, there are no exceptions. You think atheism is such a good thing why don't you choose to live in one of these atheist run countries? You think you can do better? Right, ask yourself why there are no atheist states and have never been any that have given the human race anything but oppression and inhumanity. All I can say is thank God atheists are a tiny minority in this country lest it become another atheist state.
What words did I put in your mouth and what non implied conclusions did I make? You say the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany were due to, or otherwise heavily influenced, by Atheism. If you are condemning atheism as a whole, that means you are saying anyone who is atheistic is likely to commit genocide, which is lunacy. You are no more or less likely to do that if you are an atheist. You cannot be influenced by something that is nothing. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, that is it. Thats like saying I killed a bunch of children because I was breathing oxygen. Last time I checked, regular run of the mill oxygen does not make people homicidal, but religion does in more cases than it should.
I do not go out and kill people because I do not believe in god. I do not say please and thank you because I do not believe in god. I dont kill people because I have no wish to, and I say please and thank you because I want to. No mystical force is guiding my actions one way or the other and I dont need it to since I clearly know how my moral compass works. If you cannot sit there and assume that putting a bullet in someone's head or chopping their limbs off is inherently wrong to do, then it only makes sense that an invisible being has to tell you its wrong. Goes along perfectly with the craziness.
I feel like you need to go look up the definition of atheism, and then go find the word that describes whatever it is that you are talking about, since clearly they are not the same thing.What I said is accurate and quite clear to an objective reader although you seem blind to it. But to say Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in Gods as if atheists believe everything else other people do except they don't believe in God is ludicrous and naive if not deceiving. Today's atheism, as is on display by the vocal minority of activists throughout the media and elsewhere and is often defined by their belief in macro evolution which frankly takes way more faith to believe in than Christianity.
Atheists live as though God does not exist...tell me how does an atheist define good and evil? What makes one atheist's morality more right than another atheist? If there is no God then explain to me why you think Stalin was wrong to murder millions of his opposition, or do you? Is there a secret absolute that all atheists believe in (and is so where did that come from) or by their own philosophy what give's any one atheist the right or ability to assert their beliefs of what is right or wrong over another atheist's morality. Why is militant atheism not as valid as passive atheism? Tell me. You cannot.
The psalmist David declared:
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." - Psalms 14:1 (KJV)
The psalmist David also wrote "The heavens declare the glory of God..." - Psalms 19:1
If you want to bring up the Bible (that's a joke, someone who doesn't believe in God is going to criticize his word) I'd suggest you enroll in a Bible study and consult with people of faith who have spent a lifetime studying it and serving the Lord instead of cherry picking or absorbing garbage written by atheists because it agrees with your misguided notions and ideas. You have to be extremely arrogant to say your conclusions from reading scripture are the accurate or the final word of possible comprehension of it's meaning when millions of people far more intelligent and accomplished than you revere it as the truth and the actual word of God, but then atheists, like you, are always caught up in their own ego. No surprise.Atheism has nothing to do with evolution, macro or micro. Atheism addresses only one question: belief in a god/gods. In much the same way that theism doesn't automatically connect with republicanism or pro life. My lack of a belief in God has nothing to do with anything else.
As someone who had studied the Bible in its original languages in college, and who is interested enough in early Christianity to be currently seeking a degree in history (and plan to get my master's and doctorate) joining a bible study is unnecessary, and theists are just as guilty of cherry picking as some atheists are.
Furthermore, I have never said there is no God. I Lack a belief in a god. If non belief is a belief system, then bald is a hair color and not playing football is a sport. Who are you to tell an anonymous stranger on the Internet that millions of people are smarter, just because you disagree with and dislike their conclusions? Would you appreciate someone implying that you're dumb because of what you believe, or would you consider that a personal attack that you have no problem inflicting on others?Give me a break - search this link http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics? for how many times evolution is extolled
Did you count how many times the fact the earth not the center of the universe is mentioned? Certainly that's an atheistic concept and in direct contradiction of teachings of the ancients as well...
Or the Periodic Chart of Elements? How about the law of Gravity or the physics of fusion? All areas of knowledge outside of scripture - shouldn't we be looking at everything the bible doesn't give us as nasty atheist stuff?a lot of atheists accept evolution due to the overwhelming evidence, yes, but it is not a tenant of atheism. Atheism is not a belief system. If you want to say atheism is a belief system, then bald is a hair color and not stamp collecting is a hobby.
A lot of Christians accept evolution as well.
(Waits patiently for the Scotsman)
tsadjatko, thanks for that link. It might be a great group to join one day when I get bored with hubbing. Would you like to meet me there for coffee one day?
Hey Jonny, I'd love nothing more than to meet you for coffee some day. I'd love to have you over for a BBQ. If you are ever in town...
I'd love to take Jonny for coffee as well. I'll fight you for it. Florida is much more awesome than Canada - unless we're talking about me migrating to Canada, in which case Canada is AWESOME. Can both Devon and I marry you (or perhaps your sons) to get citizenship? :-)
You and Devon are already married! As am I. I told you, we should go as a group and seek political refuge.
And have jonny over for coffe, then beer and BBQ at the same time. What a plan! In the words of my favorite zombie slayers, how's THAT for a piece of fried gold?True, and gay marriage is actually recognized in Canada. Damn, there goes my master plan - although i bet Rad would like to be married to two lesbians :-) His wife, not so much.
political asylum it is. I'll bring the beer.This is building up into a con-spirit-zy. At least it might turn out to be a Church of New Atheism!
Thanks everyone. Canada here we come!
Caught up in my own ego you say? Thats funny, I dont think I defined myself as an atheist, just that I understood their views. I am an agnostic. But I'm sure you knew that...oh wait.
If you wish to read further into that, I guess I am an atheist when it regards any type of organized religion's god. I think they are all a load of BS, but I do not outright deny that there might be SOME kind of higher deity out there. There is no evidence to say that there is, but there is none to say that there isn't either. I am fine with either answer since it still does not affect how I will live my life, but I would be lying if I said I wouldn't be interested in knowing for certain.
How does a Christian define good and evil? Because an outdated book/invisible deity told them what is good and bad? I dont understand how you see that as somehow more logical than an individual person defining what is good and bad to them when that book has an abhorrent amount of bad things in it. If you were to go outside your home and kill someone right now, I would imagine you would not feel all too pleased with yourself. You would feel terribly horrified, logic would then dictate that killing people is a bad thing to do. If you were to go out and rape a woman, I highly doubt they would enjoy it, so again logic would dictate that it is a bad thing to do.
Anyway, you voided any of your credibility from now regarding this topic for saying that I cannot criticize the bible if I do not believe in it. So basically what you are saying is that only people who believe in the bible can talk about it, meaning that no one is ever allowed to say anything bad about it. THAT my friend, is what is detrimental to society.Yeah you are an agnostic and I am a pineapple - you are so full of it. Read your own comments.
I did read my own comments, in fact here they are.
Can you point out where I specifically said I was an absolute atheist?
Real quick: an atheist is defined as a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Pretty sure I said I think a higher deity exists, but I do not care either way. Agnosticism is what I feel closest describes my views, and that is pretty much the only other "religious" option outside of atheism on most social network sites that bother to ask.
Keep in mind that just because I do not believe in YOUR/anyone's specific god, it does not make me a full blooded atheist.
Evil is hurting someone intentionally and with malice. Good would be pretty much the opposite, without need to kiss the feet of an imaginary being.
Nothing.
See first answer - definition of evil.
No. The golden rule is very nearly universal (except among Christians, in spite of it being spriptural) - let that be the primary belief.
You would have to define "militant atheism". I've never seen an atheist on a street corner with a bullhorn declaring "There is no god", but I've sure seen the Christians doing it with their beliefs. I've never seen an atheist with a multi-million dollar church (tax free) fleecing the sheeple for billions with the message they will live forever (without evidence, no less), but surely the Christians do it. Or did you mean the insistence that the religious keep their beliefs out of other peoples lives? Is that what makes them "militant"? That they wish to be left out of the dogmas and rules of religion? If so, they are as valid as anyone else's atheism.
Are those sufficient answers?So you are dictating to me what morality should be based on what? your opinion, that is all how is that any different than Stalin's opinion - you are a better atheist than him? As an atheist he wouldn't agree.
tsadjatko, I just dare you to substitute the word "atheist" where ever you have mentioned it in your post, with the word "theist." If you can answer all of your questions in that way, then please come back and argue your points.
I suspect you are looking at a group in the United States that calls itself "Atheist," with a capital A.
If that group has any of the exuberance found in many other groups, with all manner of "isms" and persuasions, then I can understand your rhetoric. However, as you know from my previous posts in other forums, and from the posts of small-a atheists here, we do not have one exclusive set of opinions that could set us apart as a group.
I, for one, see a huge, wonderful, integrated world in which there is room for us all.Yes, we do hear that from a small group of believers who have yet to understand anything about evolution, the scientific illiterate amongst the population.
Unless you can show any gods existing, then we all live as though God does not exist.
With a dictionary?
Logic, reason and speech. Of course, the idea is not to be more right, the idea is to agree.
Stalin was an insane dictator, this is well known in what was the Soviet Union.
Sure, make up anything you want and there will be no answer for it.
Yes, I would certainly be quite suspect and skeptical over any book that ordained absolute truth and then went on to state that anyone who doesn't agree must be an evil, corrupt fool. Those are usually the books to be avoided.
Are you saying we are incapable of reading a book? I don't need anyone else to tell my what's written there.
Ah, so only those who consider the Bible the actual word of God are the intelligent ones. Perhaps, you could explain then, that amongst those millions of people, why are they all broken up in denominations that can't agree with each others "comprehension and intelligence"?
Why not look at other countries that have democracies with a separation of church rather than pointing to dictators? Separation meaning faith is not allowed to sway the governments opinion.
Name some. I simply pointed out what atheist states have done. You want to change the subject be my guest. Name some democracies that are run by atheists.
Canada is a democracy with a separation of church and state as is Sweden. Would you like me to list more.
And so the government is run by a majority of atheists elected to run the country? I mean if atheism is not detrimental to society and is such a great thing you would think that a democracy would elect all atheists to run it. Is that the case in Canada and Switzerland? Why don't you live in Canada or Switzerland? Actually Canada is a Constitutional monarchy and Switzerland a republic.
There is a giant difference between the two systems of government called a democracy and a republic and those who interchange the two are usually advocates of republics but are ignorant of the difference. Democracies are free only if the people know what freedom is and are consistent in their application of it. If a majority of the people don’t know this, then a democracy could be just as tyrannical as the worst dictator.
My point was what has resulted when a country was ruled by atheism. Until such time as Canada and Switzerland elect a majority of atheists to run the country we really don't know, do we, how that would work out for society there. Truth is an atheist government will never happen in a republic unless the republic consisted of a majority of atheists and I guarantee you if that ever happened the next thing you would see is the ruling class of atheists eradicating their opposition as has happened in every atheist state in history. In the mean time a case can easily be made that atheism, even in a republic is a detriment to society.He didn't say that the government was run by atheists. He said there is a separation of church and state in these democracies.
A constitutional monarchy is a form of democratic government. In a country with a separation of church and state such as Canada's the leaders can't allow their religion to interfere with policy. Essentially the government is not in the business of having a religious opinion. So, in Canada they have had gay marriage for some time now.
BTW, I do live in Canada. And I mentioned Sweden not Switzerland.Is Canada as great as people make it out to be? As in free/cheap health insurance that makes you live forever and ever? A magical place such as that surely cannot exist...
And yet, you have failed to make a case.
With great respect to those who have a faith which is dear to their heart, this post is in no way attempting to deny your choice. It simply attempts to address bigoted attitudes.
Theism
The belief that there was something
and that something happened to do something
and then something magically was made
for the reasons that something only knew
for itself, creating everything for itself
in an explosive moment of uttering a word
and even allowed something that it had
created to die then become alive again
and live forever more.
Makes perfect sense.What about Christian Communism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
No, I don't see Atheism detrimental to the whole society, but it is only good if people that have a high moral within themselves practice it, but when people with low moral practice it, it becomes risky to say the least.
Is it okay or also too risky for Christians with low morals to practice their religion?
I think you hit on a real good point here. "religion" in the clearly derogatory sense you use it here would be harmful. So we say, "if it is a good religion then it would be better for a low person to follow that religion" "if it is a bad religion it would be worse for that low person to follow that religion"
Atheism gives no guidance in this matter and so of the three choices one would hope that the low person follow a good religion and not atheism or a bad religion.
In this sense both atheism and a bad religion would be detrimental to society. With a person with low morals and weak conscience his best hope would be with some guidance externally. No guidance or bad guidance would be harmful to society.And yet somehow Atheist's manage to stay out of prison? Perhaps it's religion itself that sometimes stunts moral/ethical growth.
Perhaps it takes 10 seconds to generalize an assertion.
There are a hell of a lot of atheists in prison. Bad religion could stunt growth, clearly bad religion is right up there with no religion.
16-20% of North American's are atheists, yet they make up much less that 1% of the prison population.
Just like there are no atheists in fox holes. Do you know the routine for claiming a religion and why it is done for inmates? There are boxes to check and if you check atheist you do not get any perks of being a member of a religion -- care packages, visits and time for service. That 1% is pretty stupid.
I understand the Aryan Brotherhood call themselves Christian. Nice try there.Outdated and inherently inaccurate idiom is outdated and inherently inaccurate.
I know several out and proud atheists who served in foxholes and helicopters, tanks, etc. So not only is that blatantly untrue, it's also incredibly condescending.
You really don't understand - "there are no atheists in fox holes" is a trite expression that means when facing certain death even atheists will call on God. Eric did not mean that atheists are cowards or literally won't get into fox holes, and it is no secret that many who claim to be atheists deep down inside really believe in God but for emotional or rebellious reasons claim not to. When facing certain death or danger I wouldn't be surprised if you or anyone else would call upon the Lord. After all he created you, he created everything.
Including the thing that is the cause of the certain death scenario. By your logic, an atheist is more likely to scorn god rather than ask for help for creating the source of their destruction. But its okay cuz god care bears everyone and will forgive them right?
Right...I understand the expression, thank you. What you seem to fail to understand is that the atheists I know faced life and death situations in the armed forces and never once called on God. I have been in potentially fatal situations (two car accidents come to mind) and I never called on god either. It makes the expression completely irrelevant and untrue.
Your assertions that atheists know there's a god but just don't wish to acknowledge or follow him is ridiculous. What you're describing is a maltheist, not an atheist.
And, of course, you must be referring to Christianity, right?
There is one glaring problem with this concept; every religion, sect and church purports to be good. How will the person of low morals choose? By picking one nearest his/her own philosophy is the most likely answer, leaving them right where they started except with a reason and encouragement to continue acting poorly.
How true, bad stuff happens just like bad people happen. But logically you are taking a possible situation and proving that that would be bad --- agreed. What of psychopaths that run sects? Clearly that is bad unless a fellow psychopath likes it, in which case it is bad for society just like having no code at all.
Just so. Let one of low morals fall into Westboro Baptist, or behind another Hitler, and it harms society. Whether religious or atheist, there are bad "groups" and good "groups". Follow the bad to cause harm, follow the good to cause (societies) growth and maturity.
And, of course, you're going to tell us that Christianity is a good religion?
Atheism doesn't offer guidance in this matter, it does not justify any religions to be good or bad, it simply shows all religions to be irrelevant.
Can you show us a good religion that is not detrimental to society?http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2600122
"Absolutely no problem, I would agree the answer to what Jesus actually considered about hell was more complicated and misunderstood than what it ought to be, as you say, vastly different. Undoubtedly, a guy like Jesus would recognize and acknowledge a good person no matter what that person believed as a faith, and was certain in His mind that person could never warrant receiving the punishment of hell.
Surely, if I eat human babies for breakfast, I would expect some form of cruel punishment from any given god in the afterlife, that just stands to reason. I'm sure many of us could easily picture Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot roasting over an open flame to a tender crisp for all eternity. It is something even I would have no problem agreeing with God over that decision."Now that's something I can't understand. Why this cruel punishment? What can it possibly accomplish, what is the purpose of such action?
God could simply dispose of such people as flawed creations or tools that have served their purpose. He could change them to be nice. He could do anything - why does He cause cruel punishment, or indeed any punishment at all?Sorry, but that is just copy/paste, that isn't a response. Do you actually have anything to say?
Christianity is a good religion IF followed the correct way. Obviously, people killing others in the name of God is NOT christ-like. Christianity is NOT to blame for those atrocities. Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
So people who call themselves Christians but disagree with your interpretation are not real Christians? They, of course, would say the same thing about you. Why do you assume that you're right and everyone else is wrong?
No, I do not believe that the people who carried out the Spanish Inquisition were real Christians. I think they were deceived. God will judge.
I see. Saying that during the inquisition would have gotten you burned. Your opinion is fun and all, but they used Scripture to justify their position, just like you do - and considering what I've seen you say about homosexuals and on these forums, you don't seem much better than they were - you just lack the power and spry that they had to do something about it.
I would NEVER tie someone up to a pole and burn them alive. NEVER.
Not even if your god told you to? You'd make a poor Abraham, refusing to follow God's orders like that.
Yet when you declare homosexual persons as sinful, and that convinces others anywhere in the world to punish them, even hang them up until they are dead, it is your declaration that is a nail in their coffins.
All based upon your interpretation of a book that you claim was written by your god. Some god!
The Inquisitions began around the 12th century, didn't end until the early part of the 19th century and encapsulated much of the known world.
So, based on your claim, few if any were Christians for seven hundred years.Just because one says that one is a Christian, does not mean that they are Christian.
"Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven," said Jesus. In other words, not everyone who thinks they're getting saved is actually saved.No true scottsman logical fallacy. What you really mean is that if self proclaimed Christians act in a way you don't like, you'll just say they're not "real" Christians like you are - but they would probably say the same about you. It doesn't hurt your faith to amir that Christians in the past have been guilty of terrible things. It doesn't mean that they're not Christians.
Do you believe in fairies? Humans, you, I, everyone, are responsible for our actions. The buck stops here. There is no one "out there" beyond our selves, making decisions for us.
When you can come back into yourself and deal with whatever you find there, then you will start to make a difference in this world. It is something I do all the time. I am still not perfect in every situation, never will be. It's in the journey of trying that we find a worthwhile life.
Having an atheist understanding does not make me a bad person. Being a christian does not make you a good person. We have to keep trying all the time. No passing the buck onto a mythical Satan... or calling upon a mythical Jesus to save you. The Buck Stops Here, with "Me!"Religion does not pass the buck. There is free will, referenced often in the Bible. The choices are indeed within the individual and yes, one is responsible for their own choices, religious or not.
Yes I firmly believe in the possibility of fairies. Do you think we know all of Heaven and Earth that you can discount the possibility of anything? Recently we've discovered at least 10 species we believed to be extinct and passed off giant squids as a fantasy of sailors until one washed up on a beach.With respect, Sassy, I do discount the notion of a "heaven" out there somewhere...... As a finite being on this finite planet subject to finite environment and physical laws, as we understand them, I do not see anything in terms of a possibility of "fairies" either at the bottom of the garden or in any life of reality.
I see any references to "heaven" in the bible as being metaphor, trying to give clarity to a state of being which we can achieve in this life via appropriate intentions, decisions, actions and practice.
In this sense I don't see any point in passing the buck to imaginary forces. They might exist in some form, outside of my finite experience, but it's a waste of time searching for them. It would detract from my tasks and involvements with this life that I know.
You, I and everyone is entitled to see it differently, and we can respect those with differences. So, let's agree to differ.
(As a further comment, a few hours later, after having been doing gardening all morning..... I am not averse to new scientific findings that we might have extra-sensory abilities, for example originating from EMFs generated by electrical activity in our brains.... in any part of the body for that matter. We know that any electrical current in a conductor can produce magnetism, so it's possible we could communicate telepathically, from a logical point of view. All I would require would be repeatable experiments and proofs and demonstrable outcomes before accepting, not hearsay or beliefs.)
- Sorry, but using an imaginary super evil guy to defend the position of an ideology is not an argument. Try talking about reality, instead.
Perhaps, I should have said that religions gives guidance to people that don't know how to behave, so it helps them to form an idea what to do. Whereas atheism does not, so atheism does not help anyone.
Are you saying that because it doesnt help them, it harms them instead?
No, but if it does not help, it is useless to follow, or say that it is good.
Atheism is not something that you "follow". It is a single position on a single question: whether you believe in a god or lack belief. I don't understand your comment.
JM Then why would an atheist ever argue with a theist? Seems you are saying it is a "to me" single issue. And I see your point. But that makes arguing about it with someone else nonsensical. (except for fun but not out of conviction ;-)
A "to me" single point of issue leaves questioning or attacking a Christian simply a mean spirited episode, and that would be detrimental.I talk about religion because it's a subject that I have studied for my whole life, and I've found that an incredibly large majority of Christians I've interacted with know next to nothing about the history of the Bible or the early church that they have so much faith in. I've always been interested in history, and you cannot study history without studying religion. Should I just ignore a subject that interests me because I don't believe it's true anymore? Do you have to believe in something in order to talk about it? That seems silly to me.
I have these conversations because I like them, they're fun and they interest me. Why do you? Solely for conversion opportunities? How many people have you converted in the hp forums?
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. That's it. That's the only question it addresses. It's like saying that a lack of belief in Bigfoot makes you a good or bad person. It's completely nonsensical. It is a single issueAnd so also why I discuss these matters. They are of great interest and a little more important than supermarket tabloid divas.
So atheism is not intrinsically bad for society.
Religion is not intrinsically bad for society.
The bottom line answer here is that Atheism is not bad for society. Amen
In a way atheism does give you freedom. If you no longer believe in a higher power, then you no longer believe in having someone to answer to for your wrongdoings. Atheism gives one freedom to continue living a sinful life. People justify their sins but believing that there is no one deity to answer to.
You do not speak for or understand atheists at all. Please stop trying to speak for us. We're right here.
But that is why some people have turned away from God. I've heard such atheists say it was a relief not to believe in God anymore because they didn't have to worry about hell, or getting comeuppance from sins.
I don't believe you. It was freeing to recognize that I was an atheist, but it wasn't because I was "free to sin" or free from your version of hell. I really soberly doubt any actual atheist had told you that, and if they did I sincerely doubt that they have good reasons for being an atheist. It's laughable. It's even more laughable that you don't understand why.
I'm not going to say who said it, but he is a very well respected and articulate atheist here on Hubpages.
Yeah, still don't believe you. Even if it is true, Not all atheists are rational. Just like not all Christians are loving. It's still laughable.
Phew! A respected Atheist here in Hubpages?! Is this what they mean by Climate Change?
Does this person's name relate to the head of the human body, more specifically the bone portion? Because if you are talking about who I think you are talking about, I highly doubt he ever said that and if so, I intend to ask him how he phrased it to you.
That would imply that you are afraid of god. It does not make sense to say you love and accept god into your heart when you are terrified of him sending you to hell for not believing. It is hard to take people seriously when they say that god is all loving when they themselves are afraid of being sent to hell for something as simple as not believing hard enough.Yes, Link, I think you may be thinking of the same person, and yes, he has said it, more than once. He and I have had many a conversation, and he has written hundreds of hubs on the topic of being an atheist.
And yes, I am afraid of God, in the same way a child would be afraid of their parents: for disciplinary purposes. God is a loving God, but He is just. Think of it the way a parent would raise a child, disciplining them for not acting favorably. And it is not that one would go to hell for not believing hard enough, you either believe or you don't.I would be afraid of getting caught with my hand in the cookie jar because it either meant a spanking, a time out, or having my toy/game system taken away for a month +.
All of those things are temporary, some of them can be lifted earlier with good behavior. Eternity in hell is for...well eternity. Endless. Never ending. Couple that with supposedly the worst pain imaginable and thats the worse thing that could ever happen to a person. The worst pain/experience you could ever imagine is being brought down upon you by a supposed all loving father who created everything in existence. Why is this punishment happening? For something as silly as not having faith in god due to no concrete proof of his existence which he himself knows since he is also all knowing (meaning he doesnt care). That makes sense to you?
And just to clarify a bit about this hub user. If it is indeed the same person I have in mind, he has 99 hubs, so "hundreds" is not even an accurate exaggeration, he would have to top 200 at minimum for that to be accurate. Also, what you are saying is that he said (to you) in previous conversations that he became an atheist solely because it allowed him to sin as much as he wanted without punishment? I am looking at your previous comments and that is what I am getting from you, please clarify otherwise.
That is precisely what I say, too. However, one of the big reasons that I started to "turn away from god," was the people who tried to convince me that it/he/she existed. Generally I saw nothing that would convince me such a god existed. Then I started to use my brain, instead of my imagination, and - Hey Presto.... the answers slotted into place. I could decide what was right and what was wrong without being preached to by those who played at holiness.
What a fallacious statement to make! Utterly presumptuous!
No, it means we no longer believe in answering to an invisible super being and instead, answering to ourselves. We don't live with invisible super beings, but we do have to live with ourselves.
It also gives people the freedom to live good, moral lives, which they most often do.
There are thousands of deities to answer to, or none at all. Choosing one of the thousands is hypocritical.Not even the Hindus - who have billions gods (note: small letter 'g') at their disposal - said anything like this. Polytheism arose as a need to instruct the simple minded. Maybe even to gull them too. But no culture says there are more than one Creator.
Hindus who have billions of gods - also have a philosophy/religion like Advaita Vedanta. Perhaps every culture where polytheism is/was practiced - do have their such distinctions between gods and Creator.And, that's fine and is not a problem at all. The point of the matter is whether or not a Creator actually exists, let alone the choice between the "billions of Gods" history has provided from all cultures.
Before there was monotheism, there was polytheism. How does that fit in with a Creator?Polytheism precedes monotheism because it takes some 'intellectual' refinement to arrive at the 'one God' conclusion. And formulating as 'advanced' a philosophy, like the Advaita Vedanta, requires more such refinement.
As for the question whether a Creator exists - you know, you know all about it. It doesn't exist.
http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2602497Exactly, we evolve and learn, supplanting old information with new information, thus changing our worldviews. Science has come a long way in helping us with that evolution, supplanting ancient myths and superstitions with facts and theories, to arrive at the 'no God required' conclusion.
Most philosophies are only as good as the paper on which they were written.
Sorry, I never click those links. You'll need to explain it.
I am fine with the possibility of a "creator" that is referred to as "God." I am not ok with humans setting up a fictitious "God" that sits in judgment of us. This is human manipulation to have control over other humans.
I'm fine with that possibility, too, but as time goes on, it becomes a smaller possibility, infinitesimally smaller, almost to the point of being Planck length in stature and magnitude.
On this I would tend to agree as well. We (as a thinking species) have tended to look outwards towards the huge, bigger-than-everything, old-man-in-the-sky God that looks down on us like a worrisome father. (You can't look upon me as such, because I am certainly not big, and not really old yet.... so please don't call me God!
)
I see scientific discovery on the atomic scale as far more enlightening. The quantum choices, from the electron and smaller upwards, reaching into the genes and their choices, filling a void of infinite intricacy, rather like the lugs on each jigsaw puzzle piece, and being driven by simply the potential of "let's fill this space." This could be the only "creative" aspect.... the potential is the force driving everything forward. I know this can be confusing and confronting for those who believe otherwise, but don't worry..... we will never know the absolute, final truth about anything, because there is no such thing. Meanwhile, we can just play with our minds and argue and surmise and adopt our own understandings for the time being.
Hindus do not have billions of gods. They have one God. Everything else you see is a an aspect, a facet, a characteristic of that God manifest in us humans. In the same way that Catholicism portrays different aspects of that God in such characters as the virgin Mary, each of the saints, even the various renderings of Jesus.
From the point of view of a Christian, the danger in spreading atheism is that many souls will be led away from God. Why do that? God wants people to come to Him, not reject Him.
If god wants to win souls, demonstrating that he exists would be a good start. Proof would also be an adequate follow up. Otherwise, why believe in something for no reason?
I believe that God reveals Himself in many ways; but people choose not to see Him.
Ok. Can you demonstrate that? You can believe whatever you like, but I can equally say that another gods followers say the same thing, and you don't buy that.
It might be the most difficult thing for you to do: question whether what you have been taught and what you believe might be questionable!
I can't reveal God to you; only He can reveal Himself. It's just something you feel in your heart. You have to change your perspective--that of an Atheist.
No I don't have to. You make your choice. I make mine.
I am not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, only asking that you don't think you have to load yours on to me. Because that is a common presumption on the part of evangelical christians.
And I call that arrogant.
For me, there is no judgmental god, one that cannot be seen, only imagined.
Humans do the judging, and we all do it pretty badly in most cases.Christians only want to spread the good news about Jesus, it is not arrogance, it's love. We want you to be apart of something that is great. Y'all take it the wrong way.
Maybe it's not the way we take it (since we don't take it at all) but the way is continually presented after we've already said no. Repeating the sane message over and over again is tedious, especially when you've heard it, argued it, etc. Would you like it is every time you turned around someone was trying to convert you to Islam? Would you find that to be an act of love?
Considering what awaits a non-believer, I would consider it to be an act of love.
Do you know what awaits non believers of Islam? Are you afraid of it? Why not? When you understand your answer to that question, you will understand why I'm not afraid of your version either.
Lybrah,your opinion and your attitude is all based upon what you believe. You can say you "know it," but that is only to the point at which it satisfies your understanding.
You do not, and you cannot, know what is best for me, whether it be to do with my physical needs, mental needs, spiritual needs. There is no "god" that makes judgment upon me, here or after my death. You may continue to "believe" there is, and you can continue to believe it, but you have no right poking your nose into my life unless, either I ask you to or, if you found me on the street in need of care and unable to speak for myself then, of course, I would be most grateful for help. I would do the same for you, regardless of whatever we disagreed about.
Even to enter into a "prayer" on my behalf would be presumptuous of you, and interfering i my life.
The best you can do, if you want to "do the work of your Lord," is ask people if they would like you to be involved. If they say Yes, then do as they wish. If they say No, then walk away and give them your blessing.... freely, unconditionally.
Stop worrying what will happen to them after their death. You don't know what it will be. I know there will be nothing of me after my death, so now, in this life, is the important thing to contend with.
Ok?
No, we are not taking it the wrong way, your words are ample proof of that. It's all about what YOU want for us and not about what we want for ourselves. That's not love by any stretch of the imagination, that's pure selfishness.
Fair enough, and when God actually does reveal himself to all of us, we can change our perspective then. Until then, we are free to have a perspective void of any gods, all of them, including yours.
That's just an excuse. If God reveals Himself, we certainly do want to see Him. Of course, you're free to show us where God has revealed Himself to the masses?
In the form of evidence and observation of aftereffects. Ever have your cable go out and your TV received only static? You've just observed a piece of the evidence.
That method (that you've just mentioned) may apply to prove many other 'things'.
So what? What does that have to do with you? People are free to do what they want, yes? Are you free to believe in your God? Do you want those freedoms taken away from you?
This conversation topic is by its nature very inflamatory.
The opposite question of whether religion is detrimental to our society seems equally valid....why do we have religion? Why is religion bad when all it tries to do is bring peace, joy and love? Why do people think that life without God is so great? It is very dangerous to live your life without knowing God and that's why atheism is potentially dangerous. To lose consciousness of God is not recommended for anyone,
at all.
Most agree.
TWIII suggest the answer to this question, Kathryn, is that the world is full of variety, full of contrasts.
Some people can't help but have beliefs in something outside of themselves. It's inherent in their nature. Others, like myself, take a step out of the usual thinking mold and find other ways of viewing the world. I guess it does not have to be a situation where we all agree about everything in unison.
If there is a "god" as you believe, and there are some like myself who don't believe, does that negate the existence of the god you believe in? No, of course it doesn't. If there is a god and when you die you are totally without any consciousness at all, you will not be in a position to know there is no god. So, being none the wiser, there will nothing for you to be worried about.... total Nirvana.
I will never convince you of my thinking, and visa versa. The non-acceptance of either view does not have the power to change it. So we can continue to respect the "what if" questions and turn our backs if we don't even want to pursue the idea.
Deleted
@oceans "I say this because atheism as a view is connected inherently with a materialist viewpoint. On that view, anything goes really, anything one wants or deems right at the current time."
That is the most outrageous statement I have ever seen you write, Oceans! It is totally discriminatory, making the presumption that a person is more sinful, less moral, just because he or she is a non-believer.
It is a false view, it's judgmental, it's elitist, and I suggest you get out of that mode of thinking. It is totally unhelpful, because it sets you against me and every other person who does not accept the premise that a god exists in reality. Mostly you come over here as a kindly person, who thinks things through carefully. I don't think you have done so here.
If you consider your view to be "christian," i.e., something your Jesus would approve of, then this is one more reason I could never re-enter the christian church.Oh Jonny! Ugh... I don't like that what I said upset you to the degree it seems to have done. I did delete the comment while I could, in case I might have not been the most clear minded at that moment, but in looking it over I had a couple of things to say. First, the hard part of what I said is explained in the greater part of my post. Its not an easy thing to discuss for sure. Do you want to discuss the reasons I said that more deeply? I ask this because I think your response seems to fit what I said, but might have been a knee jerk response in part. Please let me explain...
I am not saying that all atheists are capable of doing that kind of thing, and actually quite the contrary. (like the mass murdering regimes... as the most extreme example I can think of...) I think its the WHY behind these things, that I am getting at. Do you want to discuss the particulars to see if I am being as out of line and extreme, even unkind as you are making me out to be? This isn't necessarily a Christian viewl, but I think one that logically follows. For instance, if I am truly and actually wrong, what morality could anyone force onto another atheist if the atheist had power to shut down that said morality? There would have to be one.
I also said I am speaking of views here, and my idea I am trying to get across is that each of us holds a view that supports the world and reality we are part of or not. If it is wrong to mass murder even, then on a materialist viewpoint who says so? What if that person thought they were being most moral to do so? You know what got me thinking about all this in part? The parallel thread about religion going on, and some of the very very scary responses even on the first page. If you look at history, what I am saying is actually NOT so crazy, but it IS abhorrent, and I am trying to get to the "why." A lot would explain possible things going on in a mass murderers mind, but a morality that is outside of ourselves isn't going to be one of them, and not because I say so, but because it is logically impossible on the view alone, that upholds a materialistic, relativistic, and atheistic idea. If I am wrong, then what morality could say they were wrong in doing what they thought was right? We would have to be able to point to one, wouldn't we? Our society might be an answer, but if the power in charge in the examples I am speaking of, had no societal power over the person/group in charge. They had free reign to do what they were doing. Can it be reasoned to such a person that they "ought to not do that?" If so, what is the basis?
I have seen others share a similar view to mine. Its about accounting for what we know very deeply is true. I think all of us ARE moral creatures, and most listen to that morality. If we are about to say another is wrong in anything, like you are with me even, on what basis do you say so? Wouldn't it be just a preference really? Do we prefer that people don't kill others? Rather, we KNOW it is wrong to do so. I am not saying anyone is less moral or more sinful,
Please forgive my effort to get people to consider if their views can support what they say they support. This is actually what I would hope others would do with me as well, which I think is part of your response there. Encouraging me to ditch the view I shared about things like I did. I see how it can be upsetting now that I look more closely, and for that I am sorry, but I am not sorry for hoping to get us all to think more deeply about each of our views. While this seemed out of character for me, is it possible i AM still thinking, but broaching just an uncomfortable topic? On another day, many atheists would be happy to agree that if worded different, they don't want any outside morality telling them what they ought to or ought not to do? I like you a lot Jonny, and not happy you are not happy with me. What do you want to do, can we discuss parts you disagree with? You are one of my favorite atheists.Oceans, sorry for taking so long to reply to yours. I was so busy yesterday and only found time to offer short replies to a couple of other posts. Yours is more searching and needed more consideration, so I have got out of bed at 4.30am whilst it is still quiet.
I return the compliment. You are a reasonable and approachable person, and I like your style of joining debate, even when I may not agree with your opinions. So, please don't fret. There is nothing bad in disagreeing and then sorting through to find agreement. And I am not going to desert in the face of difficulty.
There is a tendency in me, as with others, to label people into groups that I can address and with whom I can set up a dislike battle. Later in this thread I took up against "right wing believers," because it's easy to group and lay the blame. This is not the best way forward and I apologise.
However, that need to confront and fight comes from my fear. I am afraid for my own skin, my own freedom to live my life without hindrance from fanatical bullies. When anyone presumes that, because I am of an atheist mind I consequently must be seen as less than moral, this is a threat to me. When anyone presumes that because I am homosexual in my orientation then I am a danger to anyone else, in particular children, this is also a threat to me and my freedom. In each of these cases the presumptions are based upon ignorance, innuendo, unsubstantiated beliefs and superstitions. When a group of people come together to condemn me based upon their ignorance, then my life is, literally, in danger. There are many countries in this world where I would, truly, be in danger.
I have seen people say that in christian societies you don't get people being put to death for such leanings as you see in myself. Yet to cast out any person, especially a young woman or man from the family is a shockingly cruel thing to do, especially if it is based upon an innate aspect of the person's nature. In the natural order of other gregarious animals, to be ostracized and rejected from the herd is often a death sentence, deprived of community protection and sufficient food to survive. The same can happen in human communities.
Can you see that my concerns about false labeling are real and need to be addressed?
Atheist does not equal immoral. Christian does not equal moral. Atheist does not equal complacency. Christian does not equal responsible. Homosexual does not equal a danger to children. Christian does not equal totally safe for children.
The opposite can apply in each of the above equations. We are all a mixture of the same ingredients in the pie. Just different proportions, that's all. Believers, non-believers, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, we are all human with the same fears. And I say, it is the fears which lead us to knee-jerk reactions against bullying.
I have said enough. Responses please, but hopefully well considered responses, not just knee-jerk reactions.Jonny, my delay took even longer, so I hope you will understand, and thank you for what you say here. I understand what you are saying, I really think I do. A lot of us respond out of fear. I hope that what I share here can at least relieve some of the ideas that seem to result from what you take my views to mean, or entail. I can't speak for others, but I can definitely speak for my own views.
My views, can't harm you in any way. Its part of one of the reasons I choose the view I do. I know you and others may disagree, but I think it is the path to actually the most freedom for all people for all time. Not taking it from anyone. The reasons why are more detailed, but I am sharing this part in a bottom line kind of way. You won't or wouldn't ever be harmed BY my views, or someone like me holding them. It wouldn't be logical, or something that followed from them.
So if your life were ever literally be in danger, it wouldn't be in line with my personally held and chosen view. Its a bit tricky in these settings because the things being discussed are front and center, and in a sense being asked to be discussed. So they are. As for hatred, ostracizing, hurting others in any way, I am against that. I don't see the benefit, and can see the harm. I think all of us are adults, and with that comes trust that each person actually has weighed out their decisions enough to be at peace with them. IF they want to discuss, then discuss we may.... but other than that, what is the point of being hateful, mean, cruel, punishing..etc?
I say this a lot, but life is precious, going by quickly. I hope everyone in these forums are here because they are thoughtful people. That whatever side of the debate they are on, they are caring about and thinking hard about all the things we discuss. We are drawn here for a reason I think. I don't think its a mistake. Its neat to meet others along the way like yourself. For that, I am so glad.
Please understand I am not speaking about people, but a view in that prior comment, and that is a tough thing, but I make a habit of putting all views to a test, and what comes with them. I am not interested in false labeling or hurting anyone, thus the time to think and regroup. I don't have the view that atheism equals immoral, nor that Christian equals moral, and the rest, etc. I hope this matters to you.
I am against bullying, and that would include the killing of others some have brought up in the thread over time and for whatever reason. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, and thank you for your patience, and if you remember what we were even talking about. My life has been crazy busy here, but I wanted to respond while I still had it in my mind to do so. Hope you are doing well. Thank you again.
Atheism, as is theism, is a product of the human mind. All that is and all that is imagined is defined by the human mind to accommodate the needs of that mind. By it self Atheism is. perhaps, the most reasoned approach and understanding of what is the universe, what came before, after and outside.
We define existence and as we evolve in understanding, as a child evolves to an adult, our knowledge base grows and, as we once believed in the omnipotence of our parents, we must know believe in us.
We are inherently a pack animal and all such packs have an alpha male and it is this submissive position by the rest of the pack that leads to an unpleasant society. This is theism and too, Atheism, as its history shows evolves into a totalitarian society, as theism into a theocracy.
I would assert that Atheism is the cornerstone of the American Bill of Rights, as this document is absent any purported theistic principle. It provides for independent thought and action, a freedom to achieve and the freedom to fail.
Atheistic thought is the only positive future of humanity as it is the only philosophy that endears the true uniqueness and importance of the human mind, save the weakness of the pack to be saved from themselves.Atheism is not a cause to kill for, while theism has been used as such for centuries. I would assume it only logical that at the very least, people would not think atheism is detrimental to society. I have yet to see anyone present a valid argument as to how it could be. I wonder if anyone will try it with you.
Any cause in the mind of Man can, most certainly, be a cause to kill. To think otherwise is a misunderstanding of the animal.
Religion is what's detrimental to society. For examples, look no further than Europe between 450 AD and 1500 AD. If that's not enough, check out the vast majority of the Middle East ever since the 1600s AD. Or hell, Israel and Palestine since forever.
Why didn't you mention the present-day European Union?
EXCELLENT point made. In Dark Age Europe, when Christianity took over, civlization regressed in many instances. Sex and sexuality was seen as debased, only delegated for procreative purposes. The body and physicality was viewed as sinful and to be "holy" meant to denigrate physical needs. Anything that was not religious was considered to be inconsequential. In the Renaissance humankind became more enlightened and started to see religion as imprisoning, as a result, culture and civilization began to blossom again.
And I could easily point to the Soviet Union, atheist-communist China during their purges, or any other regime of that sort. Each of which killed more people than all of those who died in the incident you are mentioning.
The truth or falsehood of a philosophy or idea is not based on the behavior of its adherents. To suggest that Christianity can be refuted because some Christians didn't live up to the Christian ethic is fallacious, and opens up the example I mentioned above.
What is also worth noting, the wide and vast majority of these enlightenment and renaissance thinkers were still theists, not atheists, so how exactly can we point to secularization as the factor that transformed that time period?Blind following of religious traditions without understanding the principles behind the texts/rules is what hurts society. But I see that you already agree with this as you recognise the Middle East did not experience a decline in scientific learnings until they adopted the worshipping of traditions (around 1600AD), since Islam itself reached Arabia around 600AD (roughly).
I've stated this earlier - and would state this again - atheism is not advisable. It's actually more dangerous than smoking cigarettes.
How is atheism more dangerous than smoking cigarette? Headly stated atheists are like cancer which needs to be radiated out. How is Atheism dangerous to you?
Follow the life of an atheist. Observe it yourself.
I'm living the life of an atheist. What's your point and you didn't answer my question.
Once you're inside the matrix - everything that the matrix offers you - feels real. Everything that exists outside of the matrix - would feel unreal.
One must - at least once - get out of it just to experiment if alternative realities exist.
Atheism (the current version of it) filters out a lot of material out of life. It's unhealthy and inadvisable.So is making nasty assumptions about people and being judgmental.
And, you're free not to follow atheism just as we are free not to follow Christianity.
But, it would appear by the design of this thread (which is pure hate speech) that you don't want others to have the same freedom as you.
I seriously doubt you or any other Christian does not practice something that isn't unhealthy or inadvisable.Sorry, I'll go with reality. You can live in a fantasy world if you like.
I would have to respectfully disagree. Atheism as a philosophy is just an idea, inert until wielded by the individual. Only the individuals actions can be evil or good based on how they conform with Gods will.
I would say that atheist (and the philosophical naturalism that animates it) are ideas that one has to "presume" rather than discover. As a Christian who used to be an atheist- atheism is mentally stagnating (especially the brand espoused by the "New Atheists"). But the philosophy isn't "bad" itself.Exactly how is Atheism more dangerous and I would have to assume that you speak to more than cigarettes. To assert that The Bill of Rights is predicated on Atheistic thought, is not unrealistic; how is that bad?
The framers of the constitution advocated the belief in God for our free society. They knew it would be vital for the populace to be on the same page as far as a moral code of conduct and basis for law and even custom. If atheists live by the same morals and customs, all is well. It is postulated by the atheists that a sense of decent morals is inbuilt within natural man. Common sense does provide the same morals as religious morals, after all.
However, for them to tear down nativity scenes and the pictures of Jesus from public schools which so choose to have them, is not complying with harmless and beloved customs. To remove the word "God" from of the pledge of allegiance, to erase "In God We Trust" from our currency, to deny prayer when it is called for in public schools or to disallow graduation speeches which mention God, atheists are behaving in a detrimental way to American society, which traditionally has been predominantly Judea/Christian.
Obviously.
When they attempt to remove rights and deny freedoms, they are detrimental.The framers of the constitution advocated the belief in God for our free society. They knew it would be vital for the populace to be on the same page as far as a moral code of conduct and basis for law and even custom. If atheists live by the same morals and customs, all is well. It is postulated by the atheists that a sense of decent morals is inbuilt within natural man. Common sense does provide the same morals as religious morals, after all.
However, for them to tear down nativity scenes and the pictures of Jesus from public schools which so choose to have them, is not complying with harmless and beloved customs. To remove the word "God" from of the pledge of allegiance, to erase "In God We Trust" from our currency, to deny prayer when it is called for in public schools or to disallow graduation speeches which mention God, atheists are behaving in a detrimental way to American society, which traditionally has been predominantly Judea/Christian.
Obviously.
When they attempt to remove rights and deny freedoms, they are detrimental.
Bill of Rights, is of what I speak and of these, as you will note, there is an absence of theistic dogma. Freedom of speech, religion etc. are contradictions to the advocacy of theistic 'morality or dogma'. These 'Rights' are free from and again a contradiction to religious teachings and to the point, what is commanded, as 'righteous and moral conduct, in something called, The Ten Commandments. Freedom of religion, which I endorse, cannot exist unless there is first a freedom from religion. This means that you cannot force me, by any means, to be a Muslim, nor can I force you to be Atheistic. As a tax payer, under your premise, I should be compelled to assist you in your belief, for schools or other tax payer funded establishments. This is not freedom of religion, but a mandate by government to support your belief, your religion. It is than a government endorsement of a religious belief. For private property, do as you will. It is not my business and no measure should be taken to prevent you from exercising your belief.
If you agree that the government can tell a private company to install handicapped parking, prevent smoking and pay a certain wage, then most certainly you should have no objection to the government telling you that you cannot place religious symbols on your property. Is this not the same thing? Private property is now by the definition of the State.
There were many attempts to insert Christian dogma into the Constitution and all were rebuffed. The most popular was Jefferson's letter to the Bishops of Danbury Connecticut.
Please tell me how one removes a god? For The Pledge, that the word god is removed, does your god cease to exist?
That you accuse Atheists of detrimental conduct; if the Constitution were removed America would be a theocracy.
I have to agree however, that a war on Christianity and Judaism is under way, but it is not Atheism that you need to worry about. Concern yourself with the endearment of Islam by the government and a looming secular theism. Such is the creation of an omnipotent government, as in Marxist Socialism. Atheism is a reasoned refutation of deities, of the spiritual or Man centered kind.
I do not deny the existence of spiritual deities. I do not possess universal intelligence. I am not the fool to say categorically there is not. It is not reasonable. Is he the fool to categorically say that gods exist, when he too, suffers from a lack of universal intelligence? My decision to embrace Atheism is a knowledge of theism. It is a reasoned choice, not a choice based upon emotion, fears, or generational teachings.
Christianity is dying, as too, Judaism. This is regrettable for many reasons.I do hope you realize that "In God We Trust" was not originally on american currency, and "Under God" was not part of the pledge of allegiance initially either.
About prayer in schools, and this is where common sense should kick in mind you, if you think kids in school have the right to pray/learn about god, then you also think that kids should have the right to pray to any and all other gods that you don't believe in...right? You would have absolutely no problem with a kid praying to Allah or whatever other names people have for "god" right alongside the kids praying to your specific god, correct? Taking into account that you can get decked in the face for looking at people wrong while walking the hallways, I can't possibly imagine how that could go wrong at all.
If you think keeping religion out of public schools is some atheistic plot to derail religion as a whole, you are certifiably insane. Its sad how I have to clarify this in order to avoid the no explanation ban hammer, but that was not an insult rather than a fact if that is what you truly believe.These are American customs which the atheists are trying to derail, not religion. We are not a muslim nation, but Allah is God too..
No, they're not. They're Christians customs/icons, pushed onto a gullible public happy to force their religion onto everyone in the country, just a few years ago. During my lifetime, in fact.
They are NOT American customs.Yes, they are... because this is a traditionally Christian nation founded by Christian /Judea God believing folks… in fact, without the push to get their butts somewhere where they could practice their worship of God in the way they wanted to, they might not have come over here at all! We are not a nation founded by Atheists!
We weren't founded by Christians, either - at least not what we would call Christian today.
Jamestown was half penal and half trading - no Christians at all. The Puritans were so far to the right they probably would not be considered Christians today. Some of the "founding fathers" were, some were not. Some were Deists, but not Christian and if it were possible to declare atheism back then and survive the experience I suspect we'd find many more atheists. African slaves, of course, were not Christian when brought over and very few Chinese were, either.
We've been a melting pot right from the beginning, in both nationalities and beliefs.Wishful thinking. Not accurate. I am talking about belief in God. Africans took to Christianity quite easily. Why? Because they traditionally had an affinity to the spiritual world. Buddhists believe in God within and without. Chinese had very strong beliefs in spiritual matters as well. The belief in God is so wide spread. You really think prisoners in the penal colony had no belief in God? They probably had just forgotten God in their desperate lives in which they were unfortunate and destitute, or had become drunkards and were generally so unlucky, they had to take drastic measures in order to survive.
To be continued.Kathryn, what are you afraid of? If you allow persons like myself to choose not to accept the existence of "God," does that in any way negate your belief for yourself? I.e., your personal belief can be ok for you, and others like yourself who choose to believe. My non-belief is ok for myself. Can we not exist happily side-by-side, each having our own belief? Why should my choice affect yours and vise versa?
Christianity is not the only religion in the United States of America. Do you maintain that it must, ultimately, be the only religion? Must everyone accept the existence of a judgmental god? Can you allow people to live by their Muslim faith? Can you allow a person practising Buddhism to do so without requiring that he/she be encourage to take on christianity?
There is no way I will go back to the beliefs I held up to 30 years ago. I found so much controversy and so much religiosity/superstition/rhetoric/hypocrisy in the followers of christianity, that I walked away from it and have found so much more enlightening knowledge outside of the christian church that it leaves me cold to take on the dogma ever again.
Thus, anyone hoping and praying that jonnycomelately will be converted to anything in christianity is simply wishful thinking, without consideration of my personal feelings.You said: "Christianity is not the only religion in the United States of America. Do you maintain that it must, ultimately, be the only religion? Must everyone accept the existence of a judgmental god? Can you allow people to live by their Muslim faith? Can you allow a person practising Buddhism to do so without requiring that he/she be encourage to take on christianity?"
Don't you know that I totally agree with this? I am not advocating Christianity. I am advocating belief in God!
I am not afraid of anything. What are YOU afraid of? I am discussing my opinion regarding whether or not Atheism is detrimental to society. My answer is Yes, IF it tries to negate or justifies erasing customs and traditions already established and already RIGHTFULLY in place. Are you saying I should not be expressing my opinion just because YOU do not happen to like it?
Q. Do you think it is fair if Atheists remove well-founded and beloved customs in America?
Nativity scenes, images of Mary, pictures of Jesus, graduation speeches referencing God and His blessings, etc. have become absolutely taboo.
I think it is really really PATHETIC that public schools no longer coordinate the winter and spring breaks with the holidays of Christmas and Easter. The magic of life is much diminished in the public school for students and staff... as most there sense but can't quite put their finger on it...In the context of your Q/last paragraph here, I am much more with you. In fact I had not realised such a situation was happening there in the USA. I am aware of similar stories coming out of Britain. Apparently the christian festivals are becoming very limited because people are trying to be politically correct in regard to Islam. I feel this is retrogressive, regardless of my non-belief in the religious aspects.
How do you encourage the mystery, the glitter, the fun of festivals such as christmas without upholding the religion? How, in the United Kingdom, does one keep the excitement of Bonfire Night (Guy Fawkes) alive on November 5, without upholding the grotesque treatment of that man and his henchmen following their trial - hung drawn and quartered?! Is there such a wide mixing of cultural traditions in the modern world that we are all losing sight of our identity. This itself can bring about instability.
There is so much change taking place in our society (societies) that this is causing us a lot of stress and anxiety. It has been said that we need an entity outside of ourselves, a Higher Power, to keep us focused. If that is a "Divine Consciousness," a "God," the "Self," whatever.... fine. No problems with that. But using that Higher Power to impose authority is not acceptable in my eyes.
I am not, therefore, entirely against everything you have written as you can see. Just that I don't like to be tied into a belief system. My freedom to choose is paramount. Maybe I must extend that to yourself and others much more.NO ONE can tie anyone into a belief system. Some folks SEEM to try. They ARE irritating… but mostly they are just really convinced that their belief system will help others and/or they like to share the good news. It is as simple as that.
We have freedom of Religion. And NO ONE says you MUST have a religion!!!!. After all, we are over 15, and citizens of a free country. We make up our own minds. After 15 not even our parents can control our minds. Only ourselves...
As Far As I Know!So glad to know you are not advocating Christianity. You have probably indicated this previously but I had forgotten or it had slipped past my noticing.
Actually Krishna helps explain Jesus just fine.
Absolutely. I see Jesus' expression "I am the way" as the very same as the Buddha's Way. Any and every enlightened person will understand this, and if any so-called enlightened person said he or she was exclusively the incarnation of God, then that would negate their claim.
The christian religion, as I understand it, (and am open to correction), has tended to declare God as exclusive and only approachable by select and elite persons. It separates and segregates. Whereas the eastern religions have portrayed integration, oneness, uplifting union.
How blind are you? How on earth can it be "American" customs when "God" was nowhere to be seen on our currency and pledge of allegiance up until just a few decades ago? That is a very clear Christian custom, and for a country that is a melting pot of any and all kinds of people who follow hundreds of different religions, it is a very oppressing custom at that.
I sincerely hope there is some hidden meaning Prodio is trying to get across with that comment that is flying over my head, since I cannot imagine anyone insane enough to actually believe that literally.
I did not mention Christianity! I mentioned observing God in nature!
I thought this was a rather profound statement I made:
"...God is not an abstract concept. God is a concrete reality "You either respect the rights of people to make up their own mind about this or you don't--which leads pretty much inevitably to forcing people to live in ways that are not true to their own conscience.
Yes, I agree. Belief in God is a personal matter.
However, Spreading Atheism is not good for society.You are saying "it is a personal choice but you are wrong in a way that harms humanity"
That means you don't respect my choices at all and think I am objectively bad. I don't respect your choice to consider me a bad person who is doing bad things in the world. I know that is not true.If you are not for shutting down the belief in God, you should not take offense. I am just exploring a Godless society. China is one. Well, the leaders tried to make it so.
Unsupported opinions, particularly when false to reality, are rarely considered to be "profound"...
People looking for supremacy and world domination - might have a look at Germany, Japan, Norway, or even Switzerland.
They are some of the most spiritual nations I've even seen. Not saying the quality of their lives..ALSO:
Acknowledging the REALITY of our immortality is very important.
...expecting eventual darkness and nothingness after death is detrimental. People must know the entire reality. Our lives are so short. What is to prevent hedonism?
What is to prevent drug use?
What is to prevent suicide?
What is to prevent wasting the precious days we have on earth?Even if we are, as some think, electricity running through our nervous system - agreeing with the *law* of conservation of energy - it is still, kind of, immortal.
Though I don't think that this is the case. Electricity can not be self-conscious.
If electricity is self-conscious - then - of what material - exactly - is that self-consciousness composed of?So you assume atheists are hedonistic, drug using, suicidal wastrels?
Why?
I mean that honestly. Why would you think people who don't happen to believe in God would not be good and responsible? Why would we not be able to see that hurting other people or ourselves is wrong? What would thinking this life is all we have make us less aware that it is precious and short? I don't understand.
I feel like you are saying you basically think I am scum because I happen to be athiest and that makes me sad, because I certainly do not feel that way about you.That is quite like saying that color-blindness poses no risk while one is driving a car.
No, it is like refusing to say having delusions is a risk when driving a car. So long as they are not the kind of delusion that interferes with car driving. That is what I, out of respect, do for you.
Just because you can't imagine nonexistence doesn't mean you get to live forever. Sorry to break it to you.
I've heard that the hedonistic, suicidal, deadbeat, drug addicted Buddhist gangs are a force to be reckoned with.
Then maybe they are not following the precepts of Buddhism and perhaps they do not believe in God, which I don't think Buddha really deals directly with. They may not want to follow the precepts of Buddha without a true means of knowing Spirit within AND without. Just guessing. Not totally up on Buddhism.
Buddhism is an atheistic religion. I'm sure you could find one or two that believe in God somewhere, but as a whole, yeah... they don't.
Not really correct. Nowhere - Gautama Buddha denied the possibility of existence of a Creator God. He might have said that he was not sure whether God exists or not.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a God... so yes, since Buddhists lack the belief in a God they are atheistic.
Sorry.So you just made the word up on the spot? That's amazing! It's a real word, and almost relevant to boot.
That's incredible! Kudos.Certainly there is no difference between atheism and agnosticism.
There is apparently no difference between - "it can never exist" - and "I'm not sure, it might exist.".
Maybe you should read that again. That's not at all what it says. Oh, you didn't read it at all did you? You just thought you knew what it was going to say so that's what you guessed.
Clever!
I might not know what bill passes, and how, at the senate. But it does affect the way my boss runs his office. Buddhism stands on the foundation of, to say, a sort of universal spirituality (some basic principles that almost all human beings would agree with). Where does this spirituality come from?
They didn't find the ways to reach the Creator God - that's another thing.Oh, there are basic principles that all humans would agree with? Name one.
Luckily, I have you to teach me.
So, I asked the question... what is your answer? Or do you not have one?"Buddhism stands on the foundation of, to say, a sort of universal spirituality (some basic principles that almost all human beings would agree with)."
Define almost... is there a percentage?
The Eight Fold Path of Buddhism. See below, Melissa.
You are calling atheists bad people. You expect us to think that is okay?
I would never do that to any group of people just for what they believe. It is prejudice. It is not something a civil society should accept. We have to let people think whatever they want and condemn only actually causing harm.
Not believing in God does not harm me. Me being openly atheist does not harm other people. I am not and will not be ashamed of who I am.Please do not misunderstand me. I am not talking about atheists. I was one. I am talking about spreading atheism. or rather insisting there is no God just because the force of God is not easily recognized. Well, to many it is easily recognized and even directly perceived!
Without comprehending our life beyond the physical plane, life on the physical plane makes little sense. What is to prevent us from killing ourselves when we feel like doing so? What is to prevent us from just wallowing away in an opium fog? What is to prevent us from becoming selfish and blindly ambitious?
What is to prevent us from just wasting our precious few days, months, years on earth?The fact that I am a kind and empathetic person who loves my family, community, race and planet, abhors all suffering and wants all sentient beings to be happy.
You have yet to explain why your would assume otherwise. I really am sad that you assume me to be so horrible just because I am not Christian.
I have had enough negatively for one day and will go hug my dog. Gotta love dogs. They don't judge.That's not a nice way of talking. Sometimes, it might demonstrate the symptoms of lacking spirituality in real-time.
What about a mother who raises her children with no sense of spiritual reality. We are not discussing you, an atheist!
We are discussing the willful shutting down of the belief in God and the consequences of doing so in society as a whole!
God is a reality to be explored, not a concept to be shut down.A mother who raises her children without exposure to religion is doing them the favor of not indoctrinating them. It really is a favor.
Same thing as soon as you start "teaching" it.
I do not agree and either does Dr. Montessori. She discovered that children have a natural propensity for understanding/knowing God. It is very helpful to bring God into their lives. God loves them. Why not?
If God wants to be in their lives, then he can bring himself.
The second that anyone else brings God into their lives, they are forcing their own views upon the child. Children don't know God any more than they inherently know geography. The only definition that anyone has of God to pass on is the one they have in their own head. By giving them this definition when they are young, the opportunity to form their own faith is being taken from them.It's about reality and not faith. The contention is: God is a reality.
Prove it.
If you can find one undisputable fact about God then you will be teaching children FACT. If not, then you are teaching children your opinions. That then limits their ability to find their own faith.
That's why their aren't that many Christian children in Saudi Arabia. That's why there aren't that many Hindu children in the US. Their environment means that they will most likely be indoctrinated into the religion that exists around them. Thus removing their chance to think for themselves. They will always be biased by how their "teacher" taught them.
So yes, it is a favor to let them reach the age of maturity and choose for themselves... you know, since faith or lack thereof is a pretty big part of a person's life.You are correct. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Religion (if not properly processed) might be as bad as atheism is. And the task of a good parent is to keep in check that the child is not getting - so to speak - infected with malicious beliefs.
Yes. If you study Montessori you clearly realize she was not for indoctrination of any kind.
Yes, that's why religion shouldn't be "TAUGHT" to them by anybody. When they reach adulthood, they can find their truth themselves. Just like you don't pick out a spouse for a child, you shouldn't pick their religion/faith/spirituality either.
I must inform them which side of the road is allowed for driving.
Not when it is completely their decision what side of the road they want to be on... or even if they want to be on the road at all.
It's my responsibility to inform. After that - it's up to them what they choose or do not.
No, it's not, actually. It's your responsibility to let them choose their own path without influence.
Thank you Melissa, if parents force their faith upon their children, they will either reluctantly accept the faith, outwardly going through the motions, actually not being true adherents to this faith or they will out and out rebel. I have witnessed both. There are people whose parents forced religion upon them and they still outwardly adhere to the faith, going through the motions. There were also others who rebelled. Let children decide for themselves, it is more authentic that way. However, there are few parents enlightened enough to let their children decided their own particular religious/spiritual path. Most parents contend that it is BEST that children be brought up in a religion. They contend that not to do so would be morally wrong.
On that point - right now - both of us can not be anything but arbitrary.
But - what we are proposing - is this:
God is a reality, and not an imaginary conception, a belief. It's existence is as much a reality as the existence of material reality is.
You need proof? Want to see it yourself?
-We need an update. We are working to fix this whole issue, and make God available to everyone, as a reality. Human spirituality is overdue a major update.The funny thing is… roll the drums… Jesus has the answer! 2,000 years ago he came with the answer and we have yet to understand what in the world what he was saying!!!! He does need to return to explain himself!!!! Meanwhile, we can read what he said. The NT works, (that remain,) are real and true documents. They are really the only proof we have of God's reality in the western world. The East has Krishna and we have Jesus. Of course, the East could have Jesus and we could have Krishna... for the asking. Both together are the best.
- this is a profound statement which is totally worth repeating. May I Prodio? I am quite sure he would not mind:
"God is a reality, and not an imaginary conception, a belief. It's existence is as much a reality as the existence of material reality is."
The majority of people in the world agree with this statement with a natural sense of understanding REALITY. It is not fantasy. It is not boring. Reality is anything but boring. Look around you. Feel within you. It as all God. it is all REAL.
TWIIDefining reality is as difficult as defining a color. I can't define the color brown - to you. I can show it.
Touche.
Very nicely stated. We can, however, determine by which SENSE brown is perceived.
In that context, how is reality perceived by you?Just a side note, brown is defined everyday. Humans have had to define it quite succinctly to computers. As such it is completely reproducible. Before that, dye makers defined it. Crayon Makers defined it. Paint makers defined it. Webster defined it.
It exists, is reproducible, and is perceivable to every human being whose vision is not damaged.May I cut in?
The sixth sense, of course. But this sense is denied by others. Do not be fooled, the sixth sense is built within us, just as the others senses were. Believe it or not. One's own choice. just sharin'.
Carry on.
If we dream long enough - we might begin to consider that to be our reality.
No, The will is our reality and we must stay in touch with our will. Whatever serves to disrupt our connection to our will is detrimental to our sense of reality. Only when we have a sense of reality are we truly happy.
Just The Way I See It. ( But, based or very credible sources.)
A human body may have two healthy eyes - the eyes may be open - and we may move a color-slide before those eyes.
But if there is no self-consciousness present in that human body - then it can not perceive those colors.
To perceive reality - we need a (physical) human body - and self-consciousness.
Heck! We are actually self-consciousness!Oh yes, I forgot to mention that if one is in a coma, they can't perceive color.
Sorry for the omission.
It's true that we can reproduce color - up to an extent. But we can not create or define them.
It's just like that we may extract gold out of earth - mold it for our purposes - but we can not create the atoms and the specific atomic-structure - that constitute the metal that we call gold.I don't believe science can atomically recreate feces either.
I'm not sure what that has to do with God.
I would tend to somewhat agree with that, but only to the extent that the faith in question is one of faith in evidence and not blind faith in beliefs.
We might like to see ourselves if our body stops to produce that thing atomically- for - say - a month.
The body (no one knows - by the way - what created the first human body, and how) does that for you free of charge.
[just not saying how we can recreate teeth or eyesight (or other organs or functions) if we accidentally lose them]Thanks for mentioning about coma, though. That was a nice plug in.
Then perhaps you should look into this evidence thing.
Yes, faith is described and defined in what we call a "dictionary". But, be careful, these books are dangerous in that they elucidate and educate.
Primal instincts telling us to survive and reproduce, as has been programmed into us by hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
Killing ourselves? Obviously goes against survival.
Wallowing in an opium fog? Wastes time that would otherwise be better spent reproducing.
Selfishness and blind ambition only stop working when you're a pack animal and your selfishness endangers the pack. Those traits are thus naturally kept in check, and benefits both survival and reproduction.
Wasting time? Obviously, that means less time for reproduction, so of course it's not viable.Some do end up killing themselves. I could drag in stats but I don't want to know them.
Bring something fresh and creative. That one is outdated as ...
Sigmund Freud (German pronunciation: [ˈziːkmʊnt ˈfʁɔʏ̯t]; born Sigismund Schlomo Freud; 6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939) was an Austrian neurologist who became known as the founding father of psychoanalysis.
(As is often the result of concentrating upon the concept of one's life after death.)
Pondering the conundrum of existence shouldn't be considered a waste. Should it?
Sure, only if it takes takes up so much time in one's life that it leaves no time or thought for working at the practical details that can help to ensure survival.
It's a bit like burying your head in the sand, believing you are safe until someone kicks you up the posterior to convince you of reality.
A sense of personal responsibility maybe. Or just a love for life.
You don't need God to believe in yourself.Most people have a sense that we will not die. Ever. And we can't.
Unless we deserve the "second death," as mentioned in the bible...
Whatever that is! Big question mark! And a scary one.
ISN'T IT?I'm HOPING there's oblivion when I die. I would hate to have to live forever. How boring.
Oblivion is not really death. I am talking second death… does that scare you
or not?
V. C.Not sure what a second death is. Is that a Christian thing?
Who cares what it is… it sounds scary.
It's only scary to people who believe in it enough to fear it. It's why we don't see Christians afraid of the many other incarnations of a "hell" concept in ancient greek, Roman or Muslim varieties - they don't believe those afterlife experiences truly exist, so they have no fear of them. Atheists typically don't hold a fear of hell under Christian beliefs either unless they were indoctrinated so severely to be fearful of the Christian hell that it continues to plague them even after they lose their faith.
I am trying to say that death does not exist. To advocate NOT believing in life after death is to rob others of the truth.
And therefore detrimental to society.It may be true, but no one alive knows. You can believe in it, but that belief does not automatically translate to fact - you can't demonstrate it or prove it. If it's true, it's factual whether you believe it or not - but there is no reason to believe it's true unless you just like the idea and decide that it's true because it appeals to you.
It is true and society must plan their actions accordingly.
A mon Avis.Same-O, Same-O we've all seen SO many times on these forums. A claim made contrary to observation, but an unwillingness/inability to back it up with evidence.
Some things are a GIVEN, wilderness! Spirit/Energy is not destroy-able ENERGY is SCIENTIFIC PROOF of God as SPIRIT!
A Mon Avis
Heat, light, electricity, electro magnetic waves… all invisible. And detectable.
Why can't we detect souls?
...very very subtle and fine vibration that we do not have the apparatus to detect.
There is Intuition of course, but you do not wish to discuss Same-O.
Take it or leave it.Actually, very little in this world is a given. "Given's" from the past include flat earth and a sun travelling around it. It includes Thor and Poseidon and it includes an immaterial, invisible, undetectable "soul" that is postulated but has not been seen in thousands of years of searching. So no, a "soul" is NOT a "given", irregardless of how much you would like it to be there.
We can't detect something that isn't there...
Really.
Death does exist, and you have no way to prove that there is an afterlife.Come on, Jane Six, you know spirit cannot be destroyed. You do seem grumpy today. Even though you took such a long break...
I am in a pretty good mood today, but thanks for your concern.
All I "know" is that there is no proof for any of that. I require proof now, I thought you realized that.But the proof is staring you,( in particular,) in the face! The proof is all around us!!!
Not from what I can see. Order can come from chaos on it's own. No God needed.
Not saying God doesn't exist, but I can see that things can be explained with out God having to be involved.
If I "experience" God, I know it's time to get my meds checked.You are an earth rider. Thats all I can say!
"Earth rider:"
I think it means you are not in Planetary Orbit.No. It refers to one who is riding one's planet as the planet revolves on its axis and orbits its star... as opposed to driving one's planet.
Its like surfing, Johnny…Nope! Just hang ten!
"Hang Ten
Hanging Ten is a surfing maneuver and is considered one of the most impressive and iconic stunts one can perform with a surfboard. Hanging ten is when the surfer positions the surfboard in such a way that the back of it is covered by the wave and the wave rider is free to walk to the front of the board and hang all ten toes over the nose of the board. Usually this can only be done on a heavy longboard." Thesaurus
No analogy. Just pure info.
So you've suddenly become a Christian? Nothing wrong with that, I change religions all the time too.
I believe in the validity BEHIND all religions.
But you are quoting scripture as if it were true. Just trying to figure out where you're coming from.
All religions reveal truth in some way… not detectable by most people. why? because people tend to have limited understanding based on their use of intellectual abilities alone.
Is that why we also use telescopes? And geiger counters and neutrino detectors and microscopes and the Hadron Collider? Because simple intellect without observation is virtually useless?
I was talking about the use of intuition along with intellect. You did not compute, I guess.
As intuition is based on past experiences and old wives tales, and as neither our own past experience nor that of old wives includes seeing a spirit, it can be of no help here.
Gosh
gosh |gäSH| exclaim.
used to express surprise or give emphasis:
Repeating from elsewhere: Intuition is a real ability and it is the most real-time of all abilities.
I am sorry and VERY surprised you don't acknowledge you have it, wilderness! It is the sixth sense which all people have. It can atrophy from disuse, however.I absolutely have and use intuition (and even have a gosh, just not yours). I can, for instance, often "intuit" that an incorrect math answer is wrong; it just "feels" wrong, without any specifics.
I also hold it strictly in check, recognizing that it is unreliable and must be backed up by real evidence for any important decisions/conclusions.
But it is not a "sense" like the other 5; it is just the workings of intellect and memory, meshing together to come up with a likely answer based on history.No, it is direct perception. You must give yourself this credit.
Nope. Pay attention sometime; with some effort intuitive conclusions can be traced to a combination of history/memory, comments from others, and often desire as to what the conclusion to be drawn is.
And, you do have full understanding of religious truth based on your use of your intellectual abilities?
Then why worry about something you aren't even sure of what it is? Cancer sounds scary, but I don't worry about getting it.
I worry about things that affect me directly.
This statement is my point in a nutshell:
God is a reality to be explored, not a concept to be shut down.The Eight-Fold path of Buddhism
1. Complete or Perfect Vision, also translated as right view or understanding. Vision of the nature of reality and the path of transformation.
2. Perfected Emotion or Aspiration, also translated as right thought or attitude. Liberating emotional intelligence in your life and acting from love and compassion. An informed heart and feeling mind that are free to practice letting go.
3. Perfected or whole Speech. Also called right speech. Clear, truthful, uplifting and non-harmful communication.
4. Integral Action. Also called right action. An ethical foundation for life based on the principle of non-exploitation of oneself and others. The five precepts.
5. Proper Livelihood. Also called right livelihood. This is a livelihood based on correct action the ethical principal of non-exploitation. The basis of an Ideal society.
6. Complete or Full Effort, Energy or Vitality. Also called right effort or diligence. Consciously directing our life energy to the transformative path of creative and healing action that fosters wholeness. Conscious evolution.
7. Complete or Thorough Awareness. Also called "right mindfulness". Developing awareness, "if you hold yourself dear watch yourself well". Levels of Awareness and mindfulness - of things, oneself, feelings, thought, people and Reality.
8. Full, Integral or Holistic Samadhi. This is often translated as concentration, meditation, absorption or one-pointedness of mind. None of these translations is adequate. Samadhi literally means to be fixed, absorbed in or established at one point, thus the first level of meaning is concentration when the mind is fixed on a single object. The second level of meaning goes further and represents the establishment, not just of the mind, but also of the whole being in various levels or modes of consciousness and awareness. This is Samadhi in the sense of enlightenment or Buddhahood.
- John AllanNot one mention of God that I could see, though. Are you sure that's what you were looking for?
oh, they were discussing Buddhism above. I wanted to prove that the precepts can be accepted by any spiritually striving person.
Prodio stated:
Buddhism stands on the foundation of, to say, a sort of universal spirituality (some basic principles that almost all human beings would agree with) and Melissa wanted him to name one.
Right?I can't see how the senate affects my trash-collector's behavior, either.
Odd. I can. But as this part of the conversation was about whether or not Buddhism was an atheist religion,I thought I'd address that.
I'm sorry. Are you praying or expressing exasperation?
"Not one mention of God that I could see, though."
Yes, that was kind of our point.
No God in a belief system=atheist.
Good that you finally get it.
I am wondering if indoctrination is the thing we all fear the most? I am wondering if Atheism is merely a matter of throwing the baby, (God,) out with the bathwater, (indoctrination?)
I have a feeling we, here in this forum, may be on the same page more than we know!
Hold on:In the case of children - religion is not advisable. We are engaged in a kind of (subtle) child abuse if we introduce children to any religion.
what about public school … never mind… I hope you will pick up Secret of Childhood and Absorbent Mind (which she wrote in India,) by Dr. Maria Montessori, Prodio. You would be very fascinated with her precepts and discoveries. She was first and foremost a scientist balanced with great love for children.
It is strictly inadvisable to introduce (good children) to the public school system.
It's advisable to home-school them.
God - if we can establish it as a reality - would be a different issue.
No, I disagree. Everything in life is about reality.
We may know that God is a reality - not everyone. They would like to see proof. Experience it in real-time.
Unless the parents share their truths and correct opinions, based on knowledge, the children may not know how to tap into it. We need to introduce…
How does a society socialize the reality of God into society? Well, this is getting complicated.They don't. Faith is not a societal choice. It's a personal choice.
Children will go looking for answers when they have questions. Teach them how to use the library.I would say it is a family choice. When they are older they can change if they want to.
I suppose so... if parents are that kind of parent I suppose it's their children they are exposing.
If they talk about God - that's one thing. If they talk about Christian, or Muslim or another one God - that's another. In most of the cases - they tend to mix both of these (the God that religion offers - and the God that exists independent of religion).
The measure of benefit and harm would depend upon the ratio of the mixture.
That's not a clean process. But - as with the other aspects of this world - we have to accept it. And sometimes - it's better to have something than nothing.Right now - in this world - though many people know that a Creator God exists - they can't prove it to others. God has not yet been established as a reality - like the Sun rising every morning or other obvious realities - in this world.
This weak spot keeps atheism alive. If we can somehow *show* that God indeed exists - that would instantly kill atheism. That's the difficult aspect of the enterprise.No. A parent who witnesses the miracle of creation, ( the birth and being of his own child,) knows there is a God. The love in their hearts comes from God. It is more than they can explain. Where would we be without this Love / God?
Atheists love their children too. They can explain it quite nicely. Hell I can explain it without God. Do you need a link?
I do thank God for my children... however I can certainly conclude that the miracle of their birth and conception did not require his presence... and likely wouldn't have occurred if I actually believed he was standing at the foot of my bed.He is in us, manifesting as us. He is not standing at the foot of the bed….
(well, maybe some angels are.) Jesus said, if your (third) eye is single you will perceive (intuit) your body to be light. That light is the Energy, Love, Consciousness of God. He is everything! We are a spark of all that He is. We are immortal. This needs to understood. It is a matter of understanding and not of indoctrination.
As time goes on more and more people will be on the same page.
I am not arguing. Just revealing possibilities.
TWISIWhich part? Because if it's the "miracle" of the conception of my children, I don't think I'm the one who should be explaining that to you.
hahahaha
No!
"Atheists love their children too. They can explain it quite nicely. Hell I can explain it without God. Do you need a link?"Actually, it amounts to the same thing. The "miracle" of conception and childbirth is hardly a miracle. Anyone who has grown up on a farm understands that pretty early. As far as loving children, no God needs to be involved.
Biologically? Ocytocin. Evolutionary? Survival of one's genetic material. Societal? Protection of the young leads to continuation of the society. Psychologically? Bonding.
Plus babies are cute. I would have loved those little squirming pink poop factories regardless. By the time they weren't so cute, I had grown rather attached to them. They're hardly miracles though. Well, maybe one of them was... but that's a story for another day.Please explain what you don't understand about it.
The theory of evolution seems to be a great artist.
[Just not saying that it creates all those supercomplex invisible bonds as well.]
Has this really become an argument of "can atheist love children"?!?
It was the next logical step after hedonism, suicide and drug use. I'm pretty sure world hunger, hemorrhoids and Justin Bieber are coming soon.
Indoctrination is indeed a fear. By saying that a God exists, then you are indoctrinating a child to an opinion. That opinion will brainwash them to believe something there is no proof that exists. When they go looking themselves they can find their own answers.
I totally agree. No child should be indoctrinated into a belief/faith. Let him/her study and explore many belief/faith systems, if he/she chooses. Better yet, let him assess and think about spiritual matters for himself/herself. So many people are in a religion because they were indoctrination into such as very young children. They are so ensconced in their particular faith that they could see anything else beyond that particular scope.
Certain truths need to be introduced at a young age or there may not be an inclination to search at all.
If they were really truths, then it wouldn't matter when they were introduced. Now, certain opinions don't withstand the scrutiny of adulthood without being brainwashed from birth. Kinda like Santa. A child will believe it, an adult rarely will. It's relying on the gullibility and naivety of children.
No. There is an absorbent period in childhood. It is the right, … duty! of the parent to introduce and impart firmly held correct opinions and knowledge. The child can give it up or not, his choice... after the age of 15. This is subtle and not worth arguing about. (It is mentioned in the bible as most know.)
TWIIYes, the period when children believe the adults in their life unconditionally. Doesn't it seem kind of repugnant to take advantage of that? I mean you (universal) have this completely innocent trusting being and you are telling them things that are going to affect their whole life...
And you tell them your opinion as fact.
See, I think that's wrong. Always.
"Then, right opinion is not a whit inferior to knowledge, or less useful in action; nor is the man who has right opinion inferior to him who has knowledge? Socrates asks in Plato's Meno, a whole discussion on virtue. (They never figured out if virtue could actually be taught. But, according to GMA Grube in the Introduction of Plato's Meno: "true opinion or belief as a guide to right conduct is important in the Republic and other Platonic works." (390 BCE) So this topic has been been struggled over for centuries.
Of course it is inferior to knowledge: as it is nothing but opinion it cannot be considered truth when explaining it to others. No reasoning, questioning person will take it as true and is as likely to pass it off as simple imagination as anything.
Unsupported opinion is very difficult to pass on to other people, then, and to expect them to take it as true is nearly impossible.-what is the difference between true beliefs and knowledge? In Plato's Meno: Socrates explains that beliefs actually become knowledge after valid reasons for them are offered.
Spreading anything is a bad idea! Let everyone make up their own mind of which one of the 4000 plus religions they want. If they choose none, they are just choosing one less than the average believer. If however you stick to the forum title then no. If everyone suddenly turned atheist on their own the world would be no worse and likely much better in the sense of human rights. Without religions our brains still work!
How can minds be made up if knowledge is not spread / revealed in some manner. Not through indoctrination, but through socialization.
No knowledge was spread to me by atheists about becoming atheist. It would be my opinion (though I'll admit I may be wrong) that most atheist became atheist on their own. Their own brain gave them the knowledge they needed to come to an informed opinion. Of course that knowledge was based on something, but not necessarily based on someone else's knowledge. Socialization happens naturally and isn't always considered "spreading" a belief. I was 5 or 6 years old when I decided I didn't believe in a god, so could there really have been enough socialization there to impact that decision at such a young age?
were you exposed to theism as a young child?
The discussion has veered to this understanding: that atheism should not be indoctrinated any more than theism should be indoctrinated. Neither should be indoctrinated. In other words, Indoctrinating either is taboo.
(Actually the original point was that Atheism could harm society if universally accepted. That God is an undeniable force to reckon with. That we should learn to work with God and not deny Him.)
But each to their own, of course.Only that I knew some people believed there was some super thing (I was a child) but if that is considered enough "socialization" why didn't I become a theist? I don't argue that socialization plays a role in EVERYTHING we do, because it does, but for me to have been so young becoming a non believer seemed to be as natural as learning to read or talk. So I do believe that people are capable of forming a religious opinion or lack thereof based on nothing more than what seems to be a natural reaction in the brain. Some people are more susceptible to feeling "spiritual". It isn't always a matter of teachings.
"Actually the original point was that Atheism could harm society if universally accepted." Which I addressed in the first post. Although the second you throw the word spreading into the post I think it causes a knee jerk reaction because most people (here) believe that others should be free to believe what they want.Well, in Plato's Meno Socrates discusses the possibility that virtue is not taught (and cannot be taught) but that it is recollected as knowledge from… roll the drums… past lives!
How does atheism harm society, Kathryn? How many wars, inquisitions, and genocides were instituted and implemented in the name of organized religions? How many acts of discrimination including slavery was instituted in the name of organized religion? Please tell me, I'll wait.
Atheism does not pose a harm to society? Organized religion has posed more harm in this society than atheism ever could. Many organized religions see a woman's right to reproductive freedom as unnatural . There are religious beliefs that proclaim that being part of the LBGT communities as aberrant. There are religions which advocate against scientific inquiry and advances. There are religions which are against a comprehensive sex education, instead maintaining that abstinence only sex education is the only legitimate form of sex education. NEED I SAY MORE.A democratic nation needs the basis of religion to set forth moral principles. Does atheism set forth moral principals? I'll wait, as well.
Atheism does set forth moral principles. Instead of relying upon religion and or a supernatural entity in terms of what is right and wrong. Atheists have inward guidance as to moral principles. They rely upon themselves as a moral compass, not some outside religious authority.
This gets back to the age old question: can virtue be taught or is it naturally within one's recollection of what is true. I do not know the answer. The founding fathers of this nation had the belief that religion was good in instructing us about the reality of God. That's all.
So does Al Qaeda. So does the KKK. So did the Lord's Resistance Army. So did the Army of God. I could really go on for pages.
I said the REALITY of God, through the words of Jesus and the bible. Not crazy radical organizations!
Oh, so the reality that you agree with. That's what the founding fathers wanted to teach a couple hundred years ago.
Let me know when everyone comes to an agreement on what reality of Jesus and the Bible they choose. When you figure it out, and everyone agrees, then we'll go ahead and ram it down our children's throat.It should be an option to believe in the reality God however one sees fit. Not a concept to be denied. As Prodio said. "Some might want to close down the gold mine."
I , for one, am for keeping it open.
and as Headly Von Noggin told Rad Man elsewhere, God is like a hurricane! A force we can't deny! We need to work with it… Not deny it… or something to that effect. It was Headly's remark that sparked this discussion. I never would have brought up such a sensitive subject… but there it was in black and white in the HubPages Forums… In fact, Rad Man had to ask Headly, "So, you think atheism is like a cancer?"Yep. That's what Atheists are doing... somewhere I guess... spreading their message about the reality of God. As it's just as valid as anyone else's opinion, not seeing any detriment.
Oh, God can be easily denied. People do it everyday.
Is Atheism detrimental to society?
Ok I take the bait.
Under what criteria would someone think this? Oh...the people who are NOT atheists. Of course they're going to think that. Just like [some] atheists think that believing in a deity is detrimental to society.
It depends on what you think is detrimental, and that depends on your worldview. So, to the atheist, it is not detrimental, to another person, it is. So really I think I can guess that this question is posed to people who are NOT atheist.
Around in circles we will go, and there will be a billion posts with each person telling the other how terribly destructive the others' worldview is, with people not changing their minds about a damn thing because it's impossible to change their mind until they change their worldviews.
*gets popcorn*God is a force we must deal with... It is like a "hurricane…!" Headly Von Noggin will you please come on in?
I'm sorry but what in the world does that have to do with what I said?
A hurricane can be seen and detected and measured. God is simply of the imagination that helps people deal with death.
I'm not here to entertain. I'm here to supply to supply the boring facts. So, rather than making irrelevant posts about my not so fun posts why not give an opinion. It better be entertaining.
The truth is not obliged to be entertaining.
Given that you misrepresented what he said in the first place I doubt that he will.
See, I'm a Christian...I can see where my own faith is detrimental to society. I just can't see where atheism is. I've never met an atheist that was any less "moral" than the Christians I know. I suppose theoretically if they became the majority and punished people for their personal faith that was different, it could happen. I'm not sure how they could read minds enough to do it though.
Headly said God is a force we must work with... that we must not deny it! That is a very unique point of view to express here in these forums and to an atheist, yet.
Um... so?
People say all kinds of things. Headly isn't talking right now. Would you like to give your own opinion?Oh, that is a novel idea. Hmm let me think… my opinion is that Atheism is not detrimental to society as a whole. But any faction can become dangerous to the minority of society if is becomes a majority. Would atheism become dangerous as a majority? How can I know? I have no idea. Because, after all, I am quite convinced that virtue comes from within a person and is not necessarily taught. But, I could be wrong.
Um, how is that an answer to what you are replying to.
Clearly we can and do deny it.
Indoctrination of forced belief systems is always bad. Socialization of truth is always good. Headly mentioned the effects of atheism on society as a whole. I wish he would jog over here for a little while and explain himself!
but, alas...I don't agree with Headly on anything from God to the color of the sky, but in all fairness I believe their words were taken out of context here. If you wanted Headly to explain themselves, I think the most generous way to do it would NOT have been to publicly expose and attribute the comment to them without giving the FULL context by which they could be critiqued, and then acting as if they should go to a post you arbitrarily created, to explain their statement. Sorry but that's not fair.
I tried to find the exact conversation, but it is impossible. I thought he might join us and after all, it is an open forum. If there are rules about this I should learn them. In my mind, ideas should be allowed to be pretty free flowing.
You can do whatever you like. All I'm saying is the approach was not courteous, given the fact it was taken out of context of the entire debate involved and you attributed it to them publicly, then thought that they should reply to you. That opens the door for people to interpret that person and what they said, the way you interpreted it, and before that person has a chance to respond, people have already gotten an idea of what they said. Headly wouldn't have time to discuss it because they'd be having to re-explain what they said in context. Just didn't seem courteous.
Yes, would I like it if it happened to me? But, in all honesty I did not take it out of context. I shouldn't have mentioned his name, I guess.
We are done.
Finis.
The context, to all who have read the previous statements.
"The cancer analogy is to show how individual components in a complex system that refuse to work in harmony with the system are a danger to that system. Free will is dangerous. It means your behavior is no longer governed by instincts honed over countless generations. This is why laws had to be created to specifically tell people not to sleep with and procreate with family members. Things that would have been instilled naturally before were no longer 'naturally' adhered to. Social norms had not yet been established.
I'm not saying atheists in particular are like a cancer. I'm using that analogy to explain why some are not admitted into the next life. How it's not just some decision that God made, but that it's necessary because they are a detriment to the system. This is what makes eternal life with numerous beings with free will possible."
Judge for yourselves.I did not read this one. Only the ones before it. Can you provide the link? That would be most helpful! Anyway Ashton, You win… It is not a worthy subject to discuss anymore since it is based on out of context words from elsewhere in the Forum Stratosphere.
Good Day.
Of course, Atheists love their children. That is a non-issue. There are religious parents who don't love their children unless their children subscribe to the SAME ethical or spiritual principles as they do. How many religious parents DISOWN or DISASSOCIATE from their children because the latter decide to reject their parents' faith and/or to explore other faiths?
Yes, after the age of 15 the child has his own will and his search for God must be respected. Just as we respect the atheists departure from God; It is a choice we must allow.
But, it should not be advocated for others!
Furthermore, I believe it is irresponsible to do so.
What is so detrimentally sick about your society. Mine up here in Ontario is working rather well, I know it because we just elected (majority) an openly gay women to run the province.
Many believe in God as a solo figure ruling things. Others see God as a universal figure seeing things. Many see God as Father only or Son only, or Father and Son. Its really is all the same. All the same. Yet, few of us are on the same page and we are all arguing.
I am Not down on atheists as individuals. Of course, they can live their lives without what they view as *fantasy.* I am Down on shutting out God for those who want to contemplate, worship, love God anyway they so CHOOSE! To them it is not a fantasy. To state that the belief in God is nothing but fantasy is irresponsible and detrimental to those who would like to live their lives with purpose and happiness. If knowing God gives believers a sense of JOY who is ANYONE to attempt to TAKE IT AWAY!
The atheists really should NOT be trying to convince others their belief in God is silly or SOMEHOW detrimental just because THEY and others throughout history have misinterpreted God, his mission, his plan for earth, his actions in the old testament, etc. After all it is all His creation… the world, the solar system and us. Evolution was not an accident. Criticize actions, criticize dogmas but do not proclaim the false notion that God is Fantasy. For many, God is Real.
I write all this for believers so that they can keep on their chosen path without hesitation or doubt. ( But, avoid the dogmas at all costs!) Peace.
TWISIThe {theists} really should NOT be trying to convince others their belief in God is {real or true} just because THEY and others throughout history have misinterpreted {their observations, feelings, ancestor's words, priests, etc.} After all it {all came from the big bang} - the world, the solar system and us. Evolution {is just} an accident. {Keep your} actions, {keep your} dogmas {to yourselves and} do not proclaim the false notion that God is {real}. For {most people know better, deep down inside}.
I write all this for believers so that they can keep on their chosen path without hesitation or doubt {and without hassling or irritating those that know better}. (But, avoid the {forums and other "opportunities" to evangelize} at all costs!) Peace.
TWISI" (But, avoid the {forums and other "opportunities" to evangelize} at all costs!)"
Ditto to the atheists. Peace.
TWII
Atheists have nothing to evangelize, right? I don't know. I'm not atheist. I in fact don't really like that term because it presumes the fact that they MUST respond to a God concept and that they are identified by lack of belief in a particular belief system (a) anti (theism) believing in God. Isn't that like identifying oneself by someone else's belief? That would be like calling a person who holds no particular political party affiliation a non-democrat. Or a non-republican. That just seems weird. Maybe it's cool with them.
I don't know, Kathryn - the vast majority of "evangelizing" by atheists seems to be merely asking theists to keep their beliefs to themselves; to refrain from demanding that others accept their religious beliefs as truth. Occasionally an atheist will present evidence that what they say is true, but that is hardly evangelizing - that particular term concerns spreading of faith and belief, not knowledge.
Oh ! now folks! If you are going to exclude theists and atheists from the forums then there will be no caucus, no one to agree/disagree, no debate, no opportunity to open our minds into the light of new information.
In the United States you apparently have a movement, a group of people that call themselves Atheists. Don't you just love polarising yourselves? Is there no way that a person who calls him/herself christian can have a mind that is open to anything but what's gleaned from their bible?
Are you so scared for the very existence of your "God," that you have to fight any critcism or difference of opinion on "His" behalf?
If the "God" is so infinitely powerful, cease constricting "Him" into the pettiness of your limited powers of thinking.Can't we all get along on the following basis?
(repeating:)
"Like scientists, we must accurately observe and decode the laws of nature, for instance.
And realize we are part of nature." KLHSure, we can get along, but if you're going to create threads that judge, alienate and ostracize people to the point of considering them a cancer on society that needs to be eradicated just because they don't share your irrational beliefs (the same beliefs that are teaching people to judge, alienate and ostracize), that would only serve to be the source of the problem and not the solution.
"Oh ! now folks! If you are going to exclude theists and atheists from the forums then there will be no caucus, no one to agree/disagree, no debate, no opportunity to open our minds into the light of new information."
Umm. Wouldn't that be the point of such exclusion - to eliminate disagreement, debate or new information? To keep all minds closed?"Atheism" ...... using this term "...ism" makes it into a sort of religion. Which it ain't ! At least, not in my book. There may be groups who treat it as a big-deal membership sort of thing. I would never belong to such a group. I would be required to conform to their way of thinking, just the same as if I belonged to a right-wing christian group. If I didn't conform, if I back-slid and got perceived as "of the devil," I would be quickly disciplined and maybe ex-communicated.
Hence the nastiness of religious fervour. Close off to any other points of view and errect the barriers to any possible threat. Nothing more than a game on a sports field. Winner takes all.
So - no, I am not "an Atheist," and I don't follow "Atheism." I have an open mind, except when someone tries to convert me to their ways. There I am most definitely closed!
Repeating:
"To state that the belief in God is nothing but fantasy is irresponsible and detrimental to those who would like to live their lives with purpose and happiness. If knowing God gives believers a sense of JOY who is ANYONE to attempt to TAKE IT AWAY!"
Again: This is for believers so that they can keep on truckin'.No one wants to take away your "sense of joy", but I have to wonder if that sense of joy includes considering others to be a cancer on society?
------------I don't follow "Atheism." I have an open mind, except when someone tries to convert me to their ways. There I am most definitely closed! smile
--------- We all have somewhat of a closed mind in that regard, as it should be. Though being a cigarette smoker, I have had a friend suggest I wash the film off the inside of my windshield, which had gone unnoticed by me as it gradually gotten worse, and when I did wash it, I appreciated their suggestion. But if they suggested it every day, it will never get done. Maybe a small round spot so I can see where I'm going.Exactly. How crystal clear does it need to be???
For some people (??) it never will be.
Life itself is SOoo simple. We are the ones that complicate the whole issue.I was talking about the windshield.
In the first place, it was YOUR cigarette smoke. In the second place they made a suggestion which you appreciated because it was helpful… and that is all one needs to do.. a little discussion here and there, a little questioning, a little banter. But to proclaim over and over and over… forcing you to scrub and scrub that window! How crystal clear does it need to be? Only as clear as you want it, actually!When i said it, I was thinking in several directions. thinking it in several directions at once,
per usual.
I just thought it was a perfect analogy! perfect! Don't you appreciate your ability to decipher AND create great visions? Well, Jerami, you should. You certainly should!
Hi Johnny. How's it goin? The high tide waters have been very choppy lately and then you come in on your surf board without a care in the world. I like how you come in when the tide becomes low and calm. I notice its kind of your style. Jonnycomelater on his surfboard.
Haha, Hi. Kathryn. Good to be in touch again. Hope you are well. I have been absent for various reasons. One: I do have a life other than sitting for too long at the computer. It's not good for health (posture, heart, brain, social life), and my environmental interests take up a fair amount of my time.
Also, last week I got banned for 7 days, for posting what was meant to be humerous, and had a few words in CAPs. It seems the HP computer does not have a sense of humour.
Advancing age is teaching me a few things that only age can, e.g., there are very few matters that need to be taken tooooo seriously. Most arguments can be resolved by agreeing to differ, although we need to keep a close watch on those that involve hurting or defaming others. And it is when selfishness becomes overbearing that things go bad. Our world is in need of TLC from inhabitants who can look away from their own problems for a while and address the needs of the neighbour.
Posted from the snug warmth of my little Hut on the Hillside.... it's winter here, and I have never owned a wetsuit.Nice to hear from you. Sorry about your ban. I know what you mean about the health issues caused by hunching over the keyboard pecking away at it.
You have not missed much. Thank you for your message of peace. I am truly grateful for what you have just shared.
Saying my beliefs are destroying humanity is not conducive to "getting along".
Hi word55 I have been enjoying your words!
Dear word55,
Repeating:
"The discussion has veered to this understanding: That atheism should not be indoctrinated any more than theism should be indoctrinated. Neither should be indoctrinated. In other words, Indoctrinating either is taboo. "
Originally the purpose was to explore whether Atheism could harm society if universally accepted. Is God is an undeniable force to reckon with; one we must work with... and not against... or deny, or overlook or ignore?
For instance: If there are laws in nature, we need to follow them. Consider the old adage: "If we don't listen to Mother Nature she will box our ears!" There are consequences to eating ice cream and cake when we have a bad cold. There are consequences when we dump toxic waste into rivers, lakes and oceans. There are consequences if we do not guide our children in the early stages of development toward right behavior based on moral precepts. There are consequences for wasting one's lifetime without realizing the soul is immortal. There are consequences for not passing this information on to the youth (through gentle socialization and NOT forced indoctrination.) This is basic common sense.
Right?Any parent is going to raise their child within the beliefs they feel to be right. I think that is probably natural and good so long as they will allow that child to self-actualize into an adult with their own personal beliefs that may differ from the natal model. My religious beliefs differ from that of my parents but it never causes a moment of conflict between us.
I see it more and more that Parents are so afraid of indoctrinating their children, they are not giving them enough guidance on many, many, vital, vital levels. ps I am a substitute teacher and have been for fourteen years. The children are much different today than in the past. I have seen the results of too little guidance, no internal moral compass or common sense boundaries.
"Not if He teaches his followers to make others choose between their faith and their enjoyment of picnicking with one another."
Totally agree.No, because a Christian is supposed to be grounded especially the mature ones. An atheist can be turned around from something detrimental to them. As with my former fellow firemen, we have literally saved lives of atheists. I have been quoted as saying, I didn't save you but God did. Give Him the Glory too if you want to give it to me.
Did they have some kind of Atheists marks on them for you to recognize their Atheism while you are in a smoke filled from in full gear?
Reminds me of the quarterback who thanks God for the win rather then his team mates who were protecting him.
Give credit where it's due and take the blame when required.Word55, you are free to have any beliefs you wish for your own life. However, this evangelistic fervour that you exhibit is steeped in self-righteousness. Your presumption that your religious opinions are the right ones; that the theoretical god you believe exists is what everyone else needs to accept; that there is no other "right" way for everyone to live except what you interpret from your bible ---- this is the height of arrogance.
Just ask yourself what you are hiding from, personally. Leave me to have whatever opinions I like, whether atheist or not. I don't want or need your theist views. I am no better nor worse a person than you. However I have left the bull dust of evangelism behind. Thanks to better awareness, no god to thank, because I am a-theist in my understanding.
Questions:
1. The standard of goodness for an atheist is based on what?
2. It is possible the moral compass is inbuilt. But as we all know, the compass is easily crushed. What keeps it protected?Just popping in and out ... "AGAIN"
I quite often pop in here and read a few pages and nothing comes to mind I think worth mentioning. and once in a while something does.
What comes to mind tonight is just ,,,
The scriptures do say ... "Judge not that ye not be judged"
And something like " As Ye have judge others , so shall ye be judged"!
I've often wondered, does this mean that when looking back through my life; If it is found that I have JUDGED others 100,000 times, that I also will be judged 100,000 times for shortcomings which I saw no harm in doing? Plus all them other sinning I have been guilty of and those I have been accused of by fellow believers. Oh Lord don't think I can count that high. What CAN I do to keep the numbers down?
Whether it does mean that or not, That thought comes to mind every time i catch myself ready to judge someone for doing something " I " think is wrong.
SO is it a self serving thing to not be judgmental of others, seeing as how being self serving is also said to be a sin.What is your idea of a hydrogen atom colliding against a light quantum?
.....how in the name of oblivion did you get that question from that statement?
LOL You are quite unique, indeed.If so - so you are. :-)
http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2598187
If I may butt in here, a "light quantum," presumably you refer to a wavelength within our visible spectrum, would not have enough energy to do much to the hydrogen atom except shake it a bit and make the electron vibrate a little more. I am not an expert in such matters, so maybe someone more educated will correct me.
But what on earth has this got to do with the subject of this discussion?
(Sorry, I have now read the later posts and see where you are coming from.)
What??? to be self-serving is a sin? An ignorance of some truth? an ignoring of some truth? what truth is that? is it stated in the Bible? my advice? Do not torture yourself this way! To look out for your best interest is vital!
To be overly critical of others is one thing. To be discerning of another's character is another. After all, we must accurately discern someone's true character for many reasons. Just stopping by, as well.
Considering a major fact regarding establishment of the constitution of this country, one thing we must keep in mind was freedom from, and of religion. No one in this country has the right to deprive, or condemn any other person or group in their pursuit of a chosen religious belief as long as it does not infringe on the rights of anyone else. Hence the "separating of Church and State. We, as a society, must, enforce that separation completely.
I'm not American, so please forgive me as this is an observation from someone with a different perspective looking in.
The separation that you speak of doesn't seem to exist if/when a politicians religion is as important as his policies. If the only people who get elected are the ones that will invoke there beliefs on to people then there is no separation. If you can't teach evolution because you won't teach creationism there is no separation.
Good Morning Kathryn L Hill
You are right. I was stretching my point a bit too far.
I have noticed that sometimes the most beneficial outcomes in my life have come out of unselfish actions on my part. As Rad Man said in one of his posts. It is not an unselfish act when reward is expected when doing good deeds. And yet Karma does seem to be in play through out this life experience.
Another thing; All things in moderation.
Company just stopped in so will finish this train of thought later.Also saying one must NOT believe such and such is oppressive. I have no issue with atheists. I have issues with Evangelical atheists.
Eric, You are making it sound that just because atheism has not done anything good for society that it has no business existing in the first place, which makes absolutely no sense. Giving my neighbor a cup of sugar doesnt do squat for society, does that mean I should not exist or that I shouldn't have given them the sugar? Atheism is not a cause, it is a state of mind, so you would be hard pressed to find specific goods done for society that was purely in the name of atheism.
I do not need a religion to tell me to help someone who needs help. I certainly do not need a religion to tell me its wrong to murder, rape, and steal either. I consider that to be common sense simply because no right minded person would enjoy any of that. People who do enjoy those kind of things are quite literally sick in the head. Its hard to believe that people who are religious help others from the bottom of their hearts rather than them just trying to pave their way to "heaven".
If someone takes their moral cues from a 2000 year old outdated book, I can't imagine how they aren't dead or in jail yet considering all the murdering it tells them to do."I am not an atheist, and I really don't care if anyone is an atheist as long as they don't get preachy about it. As with any belief, it is the desire to crusade against and crush opposing views that leads to detrimental results."
In my estimation, this is the winning post by Bethberry. Thanks again, Beth.
Can we all just get along now and drop this thread, please?
Thanks.I have a hard time with that reasoning. Why is religion the only thing we should not impart to them? We could use that logic with any topic: We shouldn't teach them morals, let them decide if they want to be law breakers, cheaters and liars. We shouldn't teach them language, let them decide what language they want to speak. Or maybe, with age, we have learned a few things we could teach our children that they wouldn't otherwise know, being without experience. Then, as they age, they can decide their beliefs. It seems so backwards, as if we should have complete faith in their capabilities as children and none in their capabilities as adults.
I agree. I think it our duty to impart values. DUTY!
Duty
"1 a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility:
2 a task or action that someone is required to perform:" DictionaryBy same token, indoctrinating them without teaching them to be sceptical could be leading them down the wrong path. People of all or most other faiths are just as sure you are therefore it's a crap shoot as to which one is right. However if one hasn't indoctrinated and has taught the child to be sceptical the child could have a far better change of decided for himself which faith is correct.
You cannot indoctrinate faith. You can indoctrinate rules and beliefs, but you cannot indoctrinate a relationship with God. So in part, we agree. I don't want to indoctrinate rules, I want to impart wisdom. If I believe A is right and B is wrong, I have failed my child if I don't teach him right from wrong. It makes sense that you would believe it is a crap shoot. I understand that. I, on the other hand, have faith that God is, that God is love, that God is righteous and that His word is true. If I believe that 100%, I have failed my child if I don't teach him that. I cannot, however, impose my faith. That is between him and God. It is also my obligation to love my child no matter what his faith.
faith = belief without evidence. Which is not the way you seem to using the word - how would you define "faith" in view of your post here?
I can tell my child that if he crosses the street without looking, he could get hit by a car and die. He could obey the rules and never cross the street without looking. He could do this his whole childhood, but I cannot make him believe that he could lose his life. Whether or not he believes this is fact is completely within his own choosing. I cannot force faith, only obedience. I believe this is what cults do. They force obedience, they don't teach a system of beliefs. As if you could force someone to have faith in God. I agree, this is wrong.
Interesting, so you haven't yet told any of your children that they need to have faith in Jesus to get into heaven?
Of course I have, this is my firm belief. Whether or not they choose that route is ultimately in their hands. I can teach them what I believe, but I cannot make them believe what I believe.
Interesting, so you haven't yet told any of your children that they need to have faith in Jesus to get into heaven?
Then you have indoctrinated your faith.Here is the difference.
Can I teach my child that Heaven is real? Yes.
Can I make my child believe it? No.
Faith is a gift from God, lest any man should boast.
I cannot indoctrinate faith, I can only share beliefs.Telling a child that they need to have faith in God to get into heaven, and if they don't they will burn in hell is indoctrination.
It's no coincidence that the vast majority of Muslims had Muslim parent and the vast majority of Christians had Christian parents.
It's also no coincidence that those who use intuition rather than reason tend to be much more religious.I started a forum about it a while ago.
It's based on this Harvard study,
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/Gre … JEPG11.pdf
I may have missed it in earlier comments, but how old were your children when you started teaching them about faith and such? Unless they were well into their teenage years, you indoctrinated your faith into them whether you realize it or not. As a child, you hold everything your parent says to be true because you do not know any better.
If my parent says they have faith in eternal paradise in heaven or in a guy who created every living thing, why would I doubt that? And seeing as how kids have the tendency to completely believe in fanciful things, they would be hard pressed in being dissuaded from such thoughts later on in life if they were never told to question such things.So you are exactly like your parents? To this day, you do everything they told you when you were a child? Or were their teachings a jumping off point? Were you free to think for yourself? When we go to school, we are not free to think that our way of spelling is superior to what the dictionary teaches. Our teachers will tell us so, but does that mean we all care about correct spelling now? Many of us don't. For some it is fundamental, for others it is a technicality that we avoid fussing over.
Children can be taught a parent's beliefs in many ways. This is only a bad thing if the child becomes a puppet without a mind or will of his own.You did not answer my question. I also think you slightly missed my point as well. You teach your children to be skeptical of things you do not believe in, but the very thing you believe in cannot be proven to be true. There is just a gap of logic there that can only be bridged by someone who is not a child. Otherwise, the gap remains and the following logic is just to believe that the unproven thing is true with no doubt, which is wrong to do to a child.
From the time they are young. I also teach them safety, motor skills, potty training, walking and language from the same time.
If I thought there were a chance God was not real, I would not only not teach my children about him, but I would not believe myself. I either have faith or I do not.
Isn't that exactly what many believer say they are? A slave to God?
Why not teach a child to come to his own understand of wether you are right or not. Are you afraid they will use reason and come to a different conclusion?You're so funny. You like to instigate...
Like I said, I believe you are teaching your children just as I am teaching mine.
If you think you are not, I believe you are fooling yourself.
Gonna take a break.You're making it personal.
Someone disagreeing isn't instigating. You'd probably do better if you kept the personal attacks to a minimum.So one person teaching their children to use blind faith and teaching that questioning is Satan's work is the same as teaching children to question everything?
We can have a conversation without it being personal. The only thing I was trying to instigate is a conversation.
Since my question was only vaguely answered, considering how "young" can encompass anything from 1 years of age to 15, as well as Sed's last comment, I dont think we will be getting anywhere further without continuing to loop endlessly.
Fun times huh?
I'm not really sure what you were talking about here. When you teach a child that they just have to learn to just belief, that's teaching them to have faith that something is true without evidence. It seems much more important to me to teach them to question everything, especially if you want the to be successful and to not be taken advantage of. It's important to teach them to use reason to come to conclusions rather than intuition as intuition is usually wrong when not use as it had evolved to be used.
That being said it easy to teach a child to have faith. We start when they are you with Santa, but eventually there own reason steps in. The same thing would be true with God as well but the indoctrination is much heavier at that point.Again, this makes sense. You do not believe in God. You do not believe the God I believe in is good... therefore, you would want them to be skeptical.
Do you teach them that healthy foods, exercise and rest are questionable practices? That maybe they should try heroine before they decide if it's beneficial?
If I believe that God is good and his word is true, then I have personally failed them if I don't teach them these things. They are fully capable of denying His existence when they have become accountable.Only if you have also taught them to use reason and be skeptical. If you haven't done that as parents then we have indeed failed. Remember my kids all when through the Catholic school system. One is just graduating from high school the other is going into grade 10. I let the school tell them about God while I taught them to use reason and be sceptical. I never told them what I thought and we for the most part were dragged to mass every Sunday. They just wondered why I didn't want the cookie. My oldest never talks about religion at all much. He may be a believer. The younger two are not believers. They came to their decisions rather young and still have to attend and get one credit in theology every year.
But you did teach them. You taught them to be skeptical. You have a lack of faith and you taught them to doubt God's existence. We all teach our children what to believe, we simply can't enforce it.
I have never told my children to not believe in God. I tried to teach them to be sceptical and use in everything never mentioning religion.
How can you say that teaching someone to be skeptical about a subject, isn't teaching them that you do not have faith in that subject?
You seem confused. You okay?
I taught them to be sceptical and use reason, I said nothing about faith. Would you teach a child to have faith in math. 4+4=9, just take my word for it or do you teach them to think for themselves?I do not teach my children to be skeptical about things I believe without doubt. I teach them to be skeptical about things I do not have faith in.
Being skeptical and critically thinking are not the same thing.Which under most normal circumstances would be fine, but it just so happens the thing you completely believe in cannot be proven to any extent. Seems to be a bit of a contradiction that you will teach your kids to be skeptical of stuff you do not believe in, but wont teach them to be skeptical about the thing you believe in that cannot be proven.
My first impression of you is that you are a decent enough person, but that seems to be an incredibly underhanded thing to do to your children.You can't have one without the other. Do you buy everything the door to door or phone sales people ask you to buy? One can't find truth if one doesn't use reason and reason tells us to question everything.
Right. So if I have been taught to critically think, I can make a more thoughtful and educated decision. However, if I am the salesman and I do not believe in what I am selling then I am a charlatan.
So if I sell the product I believe in, and share the qualities and benefits of the product, I am simply a professional. If I lie about the product or try to force it on someone, I am engaging in criminal behavior. The thing you do not seem to understand is I believe without doubt that the bible is true, that it is good, that it is life. You do not. Therefore, it will always seems wrong to you for me to share this belief.Sharing your belief is not what we are talking about at all. Sharing your believe to me is not the same as teaching a child that it's best not to think. Telling a child not to think about religion because it's simply the devil attempting to temp you is indoctrination. You are then denying your child the ability to think for themselves. It's hard to get over that, I hear it here all the time.
Neither one of those are being taught or initiated by you towards your children, which is tantamount to not teaching them, but is instead a form of brainwashing, or as has already been mentioned, indoctrination.
Of course, your children are your own and you can raise them as you see fit, but often this comes at a costly price when they grow up and understand that is what you've done to them.
For someone who believes warning people about things is very important to them, should you not be taking our warnings seriously? There certainly are a number of folks here warning you of the very same thing.That can be said about many other things too.
Attitude towards politics and society, towards the value of formal school education, attitude towards choosing a career, towards money, attitude towards science and technology, understanding humans beings, patriotism, building one's worldview, respecting people not belonging to one's immediate environment and culture (foreigners) - a lot of other things.
Are you sure that 'you' (if you have any children of your own) never brainwashed and indoctrinated them concerning any of the mentioned (and those that are not mentioned - but - I suppose - that 'perhaps' you are capable of imagining them yourself) issues?
What kind of mathematics do you use for these, Rad Man?
http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2600837
Maybe we should pick their spouses and career too... because we have more experience than them.
I KNOW lots of things I'm teaching my children. Skills and information that will help them make good life choices. I also have a lot of opinions. Knowledge I give to my kids. Opinions I keep to myself. Language, math, science etc are all knowledge. Religion, politics, etc are all opinions.
Morals are a grey area. I can teach politeness. I can teach social norms. But I can't teach morality... no one can really. That's internal and each child forms that through social interactions and personal opinion. All I can do is expose them to different situations and let them form their own beliefs.
Questions about religion/philosophy don't naturally occur until teenage years though. By then, they know how to read and research such questions on their own. My opinions/beliefs need not be a factor.Melissa, please forgive me replying to this so long after you wrote it: it's easy to miss important posts when so much is going on.
I agree with most of what you have written, with just one extra bit of opinion on my part: i.e., teaching young children, from an early age, to discern which advertising on TV is believable and which isn't.
I wonder if those who are ultra-religious, and willing to base their lives on belief, are more prone to believe anything that they hear/see from TV commercials, mega church broadcasts, news headlines, etc., without delving into the details and making knowledgeable choices.
Teach children to do this and you arm them with good skills for life.
Why would not believing in God make me delusional about how hard drugs destroy peoples lives? Heroine is harmful and addictive and there is plenty of peer-reviewed evidence to prove that.
Why would believing in God even have anything to do with it given that the Bible says nothing about not taking heroine.
I really don't know where you get this stuff, because I've read the Bible and its not in there.It would be difficult to estimate the current members of America's society at are atheist at this moment. Myriad millions hide behind the concept of a political entity, while others hide their innermost religious or non religious belief's. Consider that minority that demanded morning prayer in schools be removed., . Those in power to educate our children in elementary schools, not to mention those of college/university level. Those that scream foul at the mention of "GOD," having the mention of Christmas removed from greeting cards, shopping center and mall displays. The same ones that subvert anything to do with GOD and CHRIST in any form. They are the same group that want to expand the spread of abortion clinics and allow the patrons to use those clinics as a form of birth control. And! "HEAVEN," knows what else. I do believe that atheism is alive and well in this country, and recruiting more members every day under the guise of a political entity. Readers may agree with my synopsis, while others disagree....however comma, in this Great country of ours, that is their freedom of choice.
So the argument from ignorance and confirmation bias are good enough reasons to believe something to be true? Interesting.
My dear, there is a name for people like you....
We used to call them "the peanut gallery".lol. It gets a bit heavy around here at times.
As I read your one word contributions, I hear them being delivered in a whisper, by Brick Heck from "the Middle".
Me too!! He's my favorite!! *whispers* favorite.
Sorry, it's favourite. Spelling is important to both Brick and I.
Is Brick even a name? How was that kid gonna come out ok?
*ok*It's like The King and I only slightly less impressive.
I may be able to jumble large complex thoughts in my mind, but grammar confounds me.
The musical, "The King and I"... very famous. I was saying "The Brick and I" was similar, but slightly less impressive. A little joke.
Canadians. Must "u" be included in everything? It's not always about "u".
The question is "Is Atheism Detrimental to the Whole of Society?" I have merely pointed out through history how it HAS been detrimental to Society and that is irrefutable.
Yet all you see the Atheists (and "agnostics"?) do in reply is to totally ignore what I sited from past history, try to change the subject, point to other bad behavior (why? to justify the past bad behavior of Atheist governments by pointing to theistic governments? That's your morality?) or whatever but not one acknowledges in comments that there is an undeniable historical demonstration of the detriment to society that atheism has been and unless they can prove history never repeats itself I'd suggest they be honest and quit trying to blind others to the truth.
I have not defended atrocities committed in the name of God which is not the topic of this forum but atheists seem very happy to ignore the atrocities committed by state atheism, as if they are irrelevant to the discussion. That's why atheism can be a detriment to society even today.You've showed us why dictators are bad for society.
Dictators who are atheists and forced their unbelief upon anyone who disagreed with them lest they would be killed. Thanks for further confirming what I said is right - you are in total denial of the truth and can't even see it, making any excuse you can find to blame the detriment of society by past atheism.
Of course then their's Hitler. The kind Christian dictator.
Sure am glad I live in a secular society. Do you?I hope we can say the same thing about anyone wishing to living in China or in North Korea.
China? North Korea, why do you bring up communist countries? Let's compare apples to apples, okay? Although China does have a freedom of Religion policy.
I understand that, tsadjatko, but in reality - atheists are more "moral" than most religious adherents.
We don't have a holy book that tells us to hate gays - so we accept them. We don't have holy books that tell us we will be awarded some tasty virgins if we die fighting for our god.
We live our lives by treating others in a way that we know we would like to be treated. And - because we don't get a "second chance" after we die - we try to get it right - here.
Sure, there have been some horrific atheist dictators, but they are a drop in the bucket to the numbers killed, enslaved and tortured by religious adherents.
Those were Christians slaughtering adherents of other religions during the numerous Crusades. Those were Christians that burned "witches" at the stake and struck fear in the hearts of everyone else. Christians tortured innocents by the hundreds of thousands during the Inquisitions. It was the religious that burned generations of knowledge because "books were evil."
Yes, there are some rotten atheists, but by and large - we're Saints compared to "believers."Those who are evil have the same father... you and I share relatives no matter what they called themselves. Who you and I will call Father is up to us.
(I have put my responses in blue to differentiate from yours.)Sorry Sed, all I see is blue. Is something missing?
You obviously display a biased view of the facts, no surprise as I have never met an atheist who is actually honest about history and atheism but they are so fast to draw some kind of moral equivalent to atheist atrocities as justification that they exist.
When people commit atrocities in the "name of Christ," or under some similar ecclesiastical declaration of authority, these acts are clearly abuses, for they do not represent the values of Christ himself. We never see acts of violence carried out by Christians in the first century. These violent activities largely result from improper convolutions of the jurisdictions in church/state spheres of sovereignty. These errors can be corrected though a proper application of the Christian world view.
The truth is atheists have no basis to condemn anyone's actions as, if there is no God or creator and as every atheist I have ever met proclaims we have "evolved" from random chemical reactions millennia ago, then by what authority is any one person's behavior or morality to be judged by another? You see If there are no absolutes any person can make up their own "ten commandments" so to speak and who is to judge if they are right or wrong? According to the common atheist you are nothing but a conglomeration of chemical reactions filtered through time by natural selection and nothing more. So you derive morality, a conscience, imagination from the "rocks" you came from? No those things are bestowed by God, your creator, it is obvious to anyone except those who simply refuse to believe it, not because of any evidence (as you cannot prove there is no God) but because they are blind to the truth... in a word atheists.
Dinesh D'Souza took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in historical revisionism when it comes to the atrocities of atheist regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk
In a recent interview D'Souza declared:
“ Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and Communism were atheist ideologies. Stalin and Mao weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.
It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy... ”
Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:
“ As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether Christian or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist. ”
Karl Marx said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."
Vladimir Lenin similarly wrote regarding atheism and communism: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."
Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[5] The atheism in communist regimes has been and continues to be militant atheism that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers. In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in Leningrad’s Kazan cathedral. http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Da … evisionism
Instead of regurgitating atheist propaganda you would do well to actually investigate for yourself the garbage you throw up in your comment before making such a fool of yourself in the eyes of anyone who is educated on this subject. Better yet forsake all these atheist "beliefs" as has been demonstrated atheism isn't just a lack of belief in deity but a wholly political and social ideology that says basically without a God I should be able to do whatever I please and history clearly attests to that fact."When people commit atrocities in the "name of Christ," or under some similar ecclesiastical declaration of authority, these acts are clearly abuses, for they do not represent the values of Christ himself."
No. They just do not represent the values of Christ himself as tsadjatko assigns them and sees them. This is a major problem with religions, all religions, as a different one (or a different sect of the same one) will claim the exact opposite of nearly anything said. So when you claim they do not follow Christ, they say the same thing - you both speak for and from religion, but with opposite viewpoints. Your atrocity is another's "order from god" and therein lies a major problem and a major cause of the religious bloodshed through history. Not all of it, certainly, but a major portion of it.Whatever I please within the laws of the country one is in. I'd much rather behave within the laws of my Country than within the laws of the bible. You, if you like can move to a non secular country. Take your pick, Vatican City, Yemen, Malaysia, Greece, Egypt, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Argentina, Georgia.
So you quote a Christian apologist exposed as an adulterer for your authority? Interesting. Are you also aware that Stalin attended theological Seminary?
What I don't understand is how you automatically equate atheism with atrocity, but not the other way around. Are these dictators committing these atrocities in the name of atheism, or proclaiming that their atheism is the cause of their actions? Or are they evil dictators that commit atrocities because they're evil dictators that don't happen to subscribe to religious beliefs? It's like saying that because Hitler and Stalin had mustaches, that common element was responsible for the atrocities that they committed, without any justification whatsoever. Dictatorships are notorious for atrocious acts, regales of what the leaders claim to believe. I fail to see you make a sufficient case for cause. I've also not seen anyone try to deny that these acts were horrific, unlike you who tries to say that Hitler, who proclaimed to be a lifelong Catholic was obviously not a "true" believer and misguided, so Catholicism/Christianity is not responsible therefore for his actions. Double standard, much? It seems you also have a biased view of the facts, but you'd rather accuse others than admit that you have the same problem.Im pretty sure I touched upon some of the beginning of your comment a few pages back and got mildly insulted/ignored. That tsadjatko is still talking after saying non believers cannot criticize the bible is somewhat of a surprise, if that were the case I would assume tsadjatko would be ignoring a good chunk of people on this forum. Wonder why that isn't happening...
I saw a picture on facebook one day asking if atheists liked Stalin because he was an atheist. The counter sentence to that was "Do you like water? So did Hitler".
I couldnt stop laughing.
It was alot like this picture actuallyWell that explains it. It was clearly a combination of mustache and vegetarianism.
Wonderful expression, thanks tsadjatko........ something we should all be able to quote now and again!
You seem to be very well read on the subject of atheism, to the point you are obsessed by it. Are you hiding something?
"Instead of regurgitating theist propaganda you would do well to actually investigate for yourself the garbage you throw up in your comment before making such a fool of yourself in the eyes of anyone who is educated on this subject." Only one word has been changed from the original.
You have a hatred within. It's about people who are atheist in their thinking. Where has that hatred come from, tsadjatko? Answer this for us and we might be able to help.
Sorry, but you have done no such thing. You've presented a number of fallacies and misinformed opinions in your attempts to make a case, but that is it.
According to a study done by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Atheists comprise less than one percent (0.21%) of the prison population; however, Christians comprise over 60% of the prison population with Roman Catholics leading.
Not to imply that Atheist's are responsible for crime...
But how reliable are facts like that? You'd have to take a lot into account.
For starters, the stats of believers vs Atheists in normal society. In addition, the possibility that the stat is skewed reminds me a bit of that pithy saying, "As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in school." Prison is an extreme, it causes ppl to take certain stands. How many prisoners went on record as being a believer to help their case? How many became an actual believer b/c they hit bottom?
Again, not to say that a believer doesn't commit crimes... the Bible is full of ppl who believed in God and murdered, or had illicit affairs. Believers are simply humans, who believe in God. I believe that is why the Bible teaches, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." You can believe there is a God out there and still take a life. However, when you believe that God is in control and that you answer to Him... that your life is in His hands, you might be a lot less likely to act rashly. Were those ppl in prison living in fear of God or is that stat more likely to be a measure of culture?
Eventually we will all find God. It is Destiny. And when we do, society as a whole, will benefit. The reason for my opinion:
Willful obedience to a perceived and loved God will bring much cooperation and creativity through willing obedience to boundaries necessary for freedom. It will happen in time. It has happened before in history, it will happen again. But, ultimately we are here to get out of here. There is a bigger picture and other realms. We just can't see them… yet...
TWISIIt actually depends on one's will. One who does not percieve God in life will not perceive God afterwards. Those who stay faithful to their Creator will be answered by Creator in this life and the after-life.
Suit your self.
God will always be there and has everything to give us. If we don't want these benefits, thats fine with Him.
And when you do, He will welcome you with open arms….and a hug, however big we can handle.
Thats what it says in the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita.
Take it or leave It.Kathryn, the Bhagavad Gita.refers to the god "in Here," whilst the Bible (as interpreted by most christian denominations) refers to the god "out There."
When the christian can hear the christian message as pointing to the "God In Here," it will be a cataclysmal event.
- Emile Rposted 10 years ago
0In answer to the original question. After reading the opposing thread started, it is obvious there are those who think people who claim belief are responsible for the actions of others who claim belief.
If that, then we have to assume atheists are capable of the atrocities perpetrated by other atheists. We've seen the horror. It appears atheism is very, very detrimental if the average atheist is held to the same level of accountability as is the average believer.Here is the thing, you have plenty of believers out there that say they killed someone in the name of god. Where have you seen anyone specifically say they killed someone because they didnt believe in god? Atheism is a state of non belief, that is it. I cant go out and kill someone to say "I did it for atheism!" because it makes no sense, I have nothing specific to kill for. A believer on the other hand has a "god" to kill for.
So no, atheism is not detrimental to society in the slightest. Religion has proved time and time again that it is though.I, of course, disagree. Either way, you are still claiming guilt by a very, very loose association. I still say if that is considered acceptable, atheists should be held accountable by just as loose an association. Which would make you guys as detrimental as those guys.
Don't feel bad though. If we are simply attempting to find scape goats, then we are all pretty much guilty of something in other people's eyes.If atheism were a religion with a god, then I would accept your counter points. Its not though, so to say atheism is detrimental just as equally as religion makes no sense. Thats like saying everyone who smokes, even the people who go out of their way to make sure no one is around, can be linked and blamed for causing lung cancer in other people through secondhand smoke. Doesn't make much sense does it?
Also, I never stated I was an atheist. And, whether intentional or not, you pretty much said I am just as bad of a person as a radical theist. You even further cemented that with telling me not to feel bad. It is hard to reply to arrogance calmly, especially when you seem to be asserting blame to me specifically without actually knowing my viewpoint.Wow. You kind of grabbed my statement, turned left and ran out of sight with it. I didn't say anything other than if one is held to a level of accountability it is only fair to hold the other to the same level. Claiming that non belief in God somehow separates one from the blame game doesn't hold water when one actively participates in the game.
My second point was if one searches for a way to transfer blame, they will always find a scapegoat.
If you want to also take this post personally, that is your choice. It was not intended to be so.In this particular case, yes atheism can be separated from the blame game. Religion has been detrimental to society because it allowed people to discriminate and kill others because "God said so". You cannot say atheism attributed to people being racist and homicidal lunatics because atheism is not a cause, it does not have a god to do those things for, that's just the person being a jerk/psychopath.
I feel if the initial question had been different but still pertained to atheism and theism, then your points might be more...on point. I understand them, and anything outside of this I might agree or at the very least not disagree, but in this particular instance they do not make sense
Also, If you do not want me to take your comments personally, then you should choose your words better from now on. What I said about your comment was not wrong, intentionally or not (which I mentioned) that is what you did.I'm afraid I have to continue to disagree. I would say it was Stalin's atheism which contributed to the starvation of millions of peasants. I think, were he a theist, you'd be arguing that religion contributed. Personal philosophy, and all. Mao also, during the Great Leap, had no problem writing off over 60 million. Were he a believer, you would argue that belief contributed.
In both cases, it appears the argument would be that religion was responsible; had they been religious. Since both were atheists, why would we not question that? Non belief is no different from belief. We have a yes or no question that cannot be proven and people still choose a yes or no answer. Why would one answer factor heavily while the other should be completely ignored.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think the average atheist or average believer is responsible for the actions of others. Presenting such an argument is shallow and poorly thought out. The fact that they make no sense is rather obvious. I find it interesting that there are those who continue to argue in defense of such ideas.
As to taking my words personally. I'm afraid, again, that is a choice you make. Holding me responsible is continuing in the blame game. I could choose to be insulted by several comments you've made, but what purpose would that serve?Had Stalin been religious and starved those millions in the name of god, then yes religion contributed. Had he been religious and starved those millions but never mentioned it was for god or because of his faith, then no I would not think religion contributed.
As for your words, I guess I shouldn't really take anything you say seriously anymore if I cannot hold YOU responsible for saying YOUR words. I said your words had the meaning I mentioned, which they did, but I didnt take it personally to begin with since I was unsure of what your intent was. You clarified that it was not your initial intent which was good enough for me, until you said that I can't hold you responsible for the words coming out of your own mouth. At that point, why bother with anything you say at all, especially if you say I am continuing to search for someone to blame?
And just out of curiosity, which of my comments could you have taken offense to?And I must disagree with you, Emile.. Non belief is the total opposite of belief, so how can you come to the conclusion they are "no different?!!!"
You and I and every other human on this planet is physical, finite, of this world. We can agree about it's characteristics. We have at least 5 actual senses that we can use in order to come to our agreements. Conclusions can be tested time and time again, coming up with agreed, repeatable outcomes. This is scientific process.
When you speak of abstract matters, there is no physical way of proving them one way or another. We can come to an agreement to accept a premise, a range of possibilities, to the point we can treat them as facts for the time being. Yet, beyond that, there is NO proof. Because each of us will come to a different conclusion within our field of experience that suits us. No two persons can prove they experience the abstract in exactly the same way as the next person.
When you speak of your beliefs regarding god, etc., that is all in the abstract. If you are prepared to accept that your view of it is singularly yours, then I can honour that. When you try to say that your abstract idea must be mine, then I differ totally.
Also, please prove to me that the way you see things makes a noticeable difference in your life, a difference that I might be impressed by and wish to follow suit. Because if you can't show me that, then I will not be attracted to your point of view.I had to do a double take at that as well jonny
I'm not attempting to lead Johnny, which means i don't want you to follow. I have no idea what purpose your last paragraph served.
And let's stick with the original question. Is atheism detrimental to society? Yes. If held to the same level of accountability one holds religion to. You can't have your cake and eat it also.
You claim atheism is simply non belief. But, non belief ceases to be non belief when others are harmed because your non belief influences your opinion on other matters. Right wing believers do not believe homosexuality exists naturally. They do not believe people are born with a homosexual leaning. Their non belief influences their behavior patterns, imo. Their non belief adversely affects the lives of others.
Non belief doesn't really exist. In my mind. Opinions are beliefs. We all have opinions. Our behavior patterns are a direct result of our opinions and our opinions of other opinions, and our opinion of how other opinions influence society.
The claim of non belief is simply a self righteous stand. It is, basically, saying I know. We don't 'know' many things which are valuable enough to stand behind and use in defense of attacking others. Or use as justification of harming others. And atheists are no different from anyone else. Their opinions influence their behavior patterns. Opinions are built on opinions. Our core beliefs are the foundation we use to build every subsequent opinion. So, the claim of non belief is what subsequent opinions are built on. That, to me, makes non belief more of an issue than belief. Because beliefs can always be questioned. If we lay claim that our opinions are not built on beliefs, we set the blinders in place and will have that much more difficulty assessing the validity of our opinions and our actions.Emile R, what right wing believers believe is selfish in the extreme. They think only of their relationship to a theoretical god and their theoretical demise in the event of their death, if they have not worked hard to mold the human race according to their interpretation of ancient texts they will not please their theoretical god and risk being sent to hell.. Those texts are interpreted in such a way as to support their bigoted, ignorant attitudes.
Right wing believers are detrimental to this world in ways that far exceed any that people of an atheist view point might be. I would consider much modern-day politics is based upon the idea of Armageddon and the desire of right wing believers to see it happen as they wait for the "return of their precious Jesus." They want a war to happen. They want to be one of those 144,000 and to see all evil-doers banished to a theoretical hell. I see no love at all in their objectives or their methods, only the desire to control the lives of others and thus secure their right to live beside a theoretical god for ever more.
You are right: we all have our opinions, and I have mine. which is no more, no less valid than yours. My opinion is that the right wing believer is the true anti-christ. The non-believer has seen the light of common sense and stood up to hypocrisy. The more the merrier.
So, answer to the original question : Is atheism detrimental to society? No, but right wing beliefs are..Well, right wing believers irritate the shit out of all of us. I would ask you to look into how many people have died in the last hundred years as a result of the actions of right wing believers and how many have died as a result of the actions of professed atheists. If death is the scale we use to determine the level of detriment, it isn't looking good for your opinion. If irritating the shit out of us is the scale we use, then your opinion is standing on solid ground.
I agree with you, the scale at which religions have caused deaths is not anywhere near as relevant as finding the solutions for causing those deaths.
Would you also agree that, in order to find solutions, we must be willing to take a critical look at ourselves; in order to determine our roles in the problems? Not, simply, criticize others?
Yes, and when we do take a critical look, we find ideologies called religions that drive those roles thus creating the problems.
Am I to glean, from that response, that since you are not religious you contribute nothing to the problem? In your opinion?
How would I know? I don't know you. You know yourself. I'm simply attempting to determine how important you think our interactions are? I think there are crucial turning points in each of our lives and that we, as participants in reality, bear some level of responsibility for everything that happens. If we deny all accountability, then we set the stage for others to turn a blind eye to their own.
It's not a matter of knowing me, it seems to be a matter of you providing examples of those problems. If you didn't think of any examples, how could you possibly even consider the question?
And, who is accountable for all the problems religious beliefs have caused throughout history? Non-believers?As I said. We all contribute. It is up to each of us to determine how. Where our contributions equate to negative ones and which are positive. How our actions fit into the web of interaction and influence the outcome.
That's my opinion. Apparently, you don't agree. You ask for examples, yet it is not my responsibility, duty or right to judge how your actions influence. What purpose would it serve? Do I have the right to judge your actions? Can I know your motives? Can I see the chain of events which have led you to your unique opinions and conclusions? To criticize you would be arrogant and self righteous. I certainly don't want to sit in judgment of a whole group of individuals as if I were some kind of a god, simply because I have never found anything of value in the philosophy you have espoused during our conversations. I can only assume that you haven't shared enough to help me see reality through your eyes.Interestingly enough, there is little if any philosophy contained in reality, which I am quite surprised you cannot see with your own eyes. It's actually right there in front of you.
OK. I suppose there is something of value there. You did make me laugh.
Then, my work here is done.
*cut to sunset scene with musical theme from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.*
Is it normal to be randomly forum banned for x amount of hours here on hub pages with absolutely no explanation? Would have loved to know WHAT I was reported for, since I dont remember breaking any rules. I can only imagine it was because I disagreed with someone...which would be incredibly typical
I have been banned for trying to send a post twice. In fact it was my clumsy handling of my Android phone, coupled with a slow wireless connection.... I tried to press buttons to do something else while the first post was waiting to go through. How one explains this to HP Management I don't know.
One blessing it can bring, I find: I suddenly can't post for 7 days, so other things get done around the house which I have been happily neglecting.... the downside is that other Hubbers miss my lovely voice and weird humour for all that time... don't know how they cope, really!
How CORRECT you are, Jonny. That is THE MAIN purpose of many religions-CONTROL. Another subcategory to control is FEAR. Many religions love to use fear to scare their congregation to adhere to their specific religious construct. One of the main components of fear and control is the "H" word. Nothing scares a religionist into blind and fearful adherence more than the mention of the word h-e-l-l. That is the MAGIC word of religious authorities. The concept of hell has been VERY PROFITABLE to religious authorities. In fact, HELL has made them quite wealthy indeed!
The right to worship God in the way they wanted almost cost the first settlers their lives. They risked everything for freedom of religion. Not freedom for non-religion.
PS Belief in God is way way way more common than non-belief in God. And it always will be, whether Atheists like it or not. They really should get over it.Actually, the first settlement (Jamestown, Va.) was as much penal colony as anything, and the stated primary reason was financial, not religious.
Statistics show that atheism and Buddhism comprise over half the population. If my (Very) limited understanding of Buddhism is correct, that means over half the people have no belief in a god.Your arrogance is astounding.
Although I already suspect the numbers have skyrocketed in the past decade alone, do expect the ratio of believers and non believers to come closer to being equal in the years to come. Organized religion is a shame. The internet is full of proper information for people to learn religion through, certainly helps to get real facts rather than get vague non-answers from parents who were teaching their kids to believe in fairy tales since day 1.I am perfectly okay with statues of Shiva, Allah, Buddha, Brahma and especially my beloved Vishnu and saints of any religion. They are all representatives of the one true God.
Thank you for your attempts to educate and enlighten us. Nevertheless, I hold firm to my opinion that the customs already in place, which the majority hold dear due to the fact that this is a traditionally Judea/Christian country, should not be torn down by Atheists. And they are. Other religions have respect for God in whatever form he is worshipped. So it is a non-issue for other religions.
Do you even value a free society? Do you comprehend what makes one work?
(Unless you do not prefer free societies.)
You said, "if ALL religions were allowed in schools and public places, no one would be trying to get rid of anything (for the most part)."
They are NOT disallowed, of course, as we have freedom of religion in this country. (Unless you are actually living elsewhere and didn't realize this fact.)
You are apparently a kind and wonderful person who tries to share his/her beliefs warmly with infectious enthusiasm. However, according to you, I am arrogant, blind, certifiably insane and incredibly misinformed. Sorry about that.You know, it is really something how people will attack others and call them names, like arrogant and certifiably insane, and are quick to attack others who share different opinions. I myself have been guilty of that, but to apologize to someone and then get the reaction I got, and then see it get done to others by that same unforgiving person is the real shame.
I don't know what it is with you, but every time you end up saying something it just makes me want to say something back due to the utter lunacy.
As I said in my response to her, I do not call people names unless they show that they deserved to be called as such through their comments. In fact, I think I said something similar to you once upon a time. Unlike you, I am not prone to calling someone an outright idiot if they disagree with me unless I determined through several instances that they are one. What their beliefs are have nothing to do with anything, but how they go about spreading their beliefs.
And since you neglected to mention exactly what you were apologizing to me for, lets outline the list shall we?
1. Insulting my content
2. Calling anyone who read my content an idiot
3. Personally insulting me and my writing abilities on more than one occasion
4. Defaming me
5. Gloating about getting away with defaming me
6. Gloating about your life experience and masters degree.
7. Getting my content and eventually my account deleted from another site
8. Praying that god would show me the way after I finally got pissed off from the above 7 listed.
But you apologized so its all okay right? I told you I do not care about your apology, and I would assume most people would agree for good reason after reading that list, but I told you I would not actively hate you for it. Yet you are still under the impression that that was a hateful reaction? Do you actually read what anyone ever says to you, ever? Do not say you apologized to me without giving the reasons why in order to make me look like a bad person, I am more than capable of copying and pasting those reasons every time that you do.It was not my intention to make you look bad; it just annoyed me that you would do the same stuff to someone else, meanwhile, not forgive me. You may not accept my apology now because you're probably still mad, I get that. But let's try not to call anyone any names for ANY reason. Nobody likes to read that their "idiocy is astounding" because they believe in something you don't. When you make determinations that people are acting a certain way, you are not being objective in your criticism.
I will not be accepting your apology, now or later. If it really matters that much to you, you can blame yourself for that one.
And i can't help but feel that you once again did not read or properly comprehend my comment. It takes several instances for me to determine someone is acting in any type of way. If someone is presented with numerous chances to change my opinion of them and they cannot/will not do so, then of course I am going to come to a specific conclusion about said person. I hardly ever assume something of someone unless it is an incredibly obvious trait of their's.
You of all people cannot talk to me about being objective and expect to be taken seriously.
Everyone is quite capable to believe in whatever religion they want in schools yes. The thing is, you would be hard pressed to openly practice whatever your religion is publicly and not have anyone take offense to it. Why? Because people get sticks up their bums for the mental reason that -this person- is not praying to the "true" god. You allow one religion to openly practice, you must pander to the rest of the population and allow all religions to openly practice WITHOUT listening to crazy parent's complaints.
When you believe attempts to limit religious conflicts in schools filled with dozens of different religions is atheists getting rid of american customs, then yes you are crazy.
If you assume that believers of god(s) will ALWAYS outnumber non believers and that they should just get used to, then yes you are arrogant.
The "American" customs you speak of had nothing to do with religion up until a few decades ago, so by your logic I should be out rallying against Christians for putting "god" on money and our pledge of allegiance. You are misinformed to think its all religion atheists are attempting to rid. I can guarantee you, if public schools completely allowed the practice of any and all religions openly and if church and state were completely separated, I doubt you would see many atheists trying to change anything. It should tell you something in itself that they are trying to change things.
I do not call people names unless they actively show that they deserve to be called as such through their comments."They are NOT disallowed, of course, as we have freedom of religion in this country."
Actually, that does not seem to be the case:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/18/pa … na-school/
Atheism has never been disallowed! Why do they get to tear down vital building blocks of a free society?
You seem to be incredibly misinformed. I am willing to bet its not even atheists who are the primary force behind ridding religion from schools and public places, but people of other religions that are NOT Christianity. Since you seemed to ignore a good chunk of my previous comment, lets try this again shall we?
If you are perfectly okay with having a statue of jesus erected on the front lawn of some random school, that must mean you are perfectly okay with statues of Zeus, Shiva, Allah, Satan etc etc etc being erected right along side it correct?
Lets simplify it a bit and clearly get across the incredibly obvious point that continues to soar over your head, if ALL religions were allowed in schools and public places, no one would be trying to get rid of anything (for the most part). That isn't the case considering how mostly anything religion based that attempts to make its way into the public domain is always christian based.
When ONE religion takes precedence over ALL, you have a major problem on your hands. If you cannot see that, then I really dont know what to tell you. The brainwashing is real at that point.
Well, for what it is worth:
1 Corinthians 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Related Discussions
- 674
Is RELIGION Detrimental To The Whole of Society?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
So many people insist that Atheism is detrimental to society while religion enhanced society. Hmmm, now let us see this objectively instead of subjectively. Religions have been the source of wars and other types of divisions among humankind. Religions have also been the source of...
- 2102
Why Do Christians Have Such A Problem With Atheism?
by Brittany Williams 5 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
- 336
Atheism is a step of faith.
by The Minstrel 13 years ago
Why can't Atheists just admit that they have taken a step of faith?
- 103
Atheism : the new Judaism
by Jes Mathias 13 years ago
...and so, we come to this point of reference.We can gather from massive ranting atheism is much a splinter faction, due to its roots in Christianity. But the question comes to mind, IS atheism attempting authentic Judaism?Well, what is an authentic "Judaist" and what is an...
- 221
The vacuousness of Atheism
by Alexander A. Villarasa 11 years ago
Someone once said that if one does not believe in the existence of God, then one ends up believing anything and everything. This emanates from the perception that atheism's interpretation of existence is primarily nihilistic, devoid of purpose and meaning. For what is purpose and meaning but an...
- 297
Atheism,Objectivism,Reductionism-The devolution of Homo Sapiens
by Alexander A. Villarasa 14 years ago
The common thread that weaves through Atheism,Objectivism and Reductionism is the belief that reality can and must only be rationalized purely on the basis of its material or physical form.Atheism posits that anything that is not sensed in any physical way (seen, smelled, tasted, heard and touched)...