The Atheist thread

[Moonwalker]

I'm an atheist, which does not mean that I'm without an ideology (nobody is without one). It does just mean that I do not believe in a godhead (for me god obviously is the nature/universe and its forces), and that I do not agree to scripts of word of god and to religious forms of organizations unconditionally. But since I grew up in a Christian system, being a part of it, I still chose to live in it and to participate. My personal reasons and so my ideals for this especially is human rights, separating religion and politics, and our technologial and so industrial progress. For me there is no different/better choice to change into a different culture. But this is very subjective of course.

 

[TSPenguin]

At first I accepted the teachings of my parents, simply because they are my parrents.
As I became older and developed resoning skills and with them common sense, I would talk about morals and approach the topic with reason, as my parents did.
Same in school. We would talk about morals and values and have an open discussion based on reason and common sense.
We had fellow student that was tought by his parents, through religion, that males are superior to women and shall rule them. He agreed that although he strongly believed in those teachings, that it would be immoral for him to force his believe upon any woman.
The class agreed, that this was true and also acknowledged his right to believe as he chooses.
From my experiences I derived that certain base morals are inherent in humans. Such as not killing. And that everyone who is not indoctrinated by radical religious believe agrees to those morals if discussed properly.

It only gets tricky once you reach not so clear topics. Such as Gregs examples.
Let's take the vaccination of children. One could argue, that evolution will be served by not vaccinating them. One could use the same argument saying that the collaborative intelligence of the race enables the child to have better odds against biological enemies and serve Darwin as well by vaccinating them.
This is where values, religious believe and politics come into play. And usaly there is conflict.

 

[Ghostrider]

What if you die and find yourself thrown into Mumbo-Jumbo's cauldron for bad worshipping of this deity during your lifetime? Our chances are exactly equal.

I'm not much of a believer and I'm not that religious because I couldn't take seriously any church that would accept me as a member, but my two cents have always been: if we consider "God" the supreme intelligence that caused the Universe to exist, then we're talking about the smartest being ever. The smartest being ever is not some petty human who would condemn anyone to torment only because that one wouldn't believe in any "correct" religion, as long as that one lived justly.

So, believers can confide in His/Her mercy and non-believers in His/Her intelligence.

Me, I'm betting A LOT on God's sense of humor...

 

[Urwumpe]

God has sure more (and more black) humor as many of his followers. I think he still laughs about some parts of the bible.

If God is really the revenge full omnipotent being of some passage of the old testament, it is really contradicting why he is not able to deal with his enemies of faith himself. But if God is something like a proud parent, proud and full of love of his creation, regardless which path it takes... the world like it is today is exactly as it should be.

 

[Juanelm]

Thanks Simonpro and bujin for answering my question.

I find the ongoing discussion on the origin of morality extremely interesting. I enjoy philosophy, and for the past two or three years I have dedicated considerable time to try to answer these questions for myself, I find the topic of upmost importance for humanity.

Basically I believe morality comes from nature, and from evolution, which I think is something most of you will agree on. The interesting thing is how what is "good" and "bad" can be objective (in some sense of the word), since it is defined by nature and not by us, and it should be the same for every human.

I also find unfortunate that, as you say, most people dont bother into thinking these things. These things have the most basic importance in life.

 

[dbeachy1]

This thread is interesting.

if we consider "God" the supreme intelligence that caused the Universe to exist, then we're talking about the smartest being ever. The smartest being ever is not some petty human who would condemn anyone to torment only because that one wouldn't believe in any "correct" religion

Well said! What would be served by eternally torturing another being? I remember reading Deuteronomy 28:15-68 and thinking there was no way that the creator of the universe could be petty and cruel as detailed in the Old Testament (i.e., "LOVE ME OR ELSE!") Speaking personally I do believe in a creator because of all the order I see in the universe, but there is no way he could be anything like any religions purport.

People form their beliefs based on a number of factors, such as 1) what their parents taught them, 2) what their peers believe, 3) what they observe (science and logic). Also, fear [of eternal torture] is a powerful motivator to keep people from leaving a given religion or even just questioning things that do not make sense.

Do you need any authority for such basic rules? You need such authority, when you want to explain abstract and often illogical rules like "no abortion, no sex before marriage, no stem cell research, death penalty is justice".

The irony is that many religious fundamentalists strongly support the death penalty but also strongly believe in eternal torture for "believing the wrong religion." If they truly believe that eternal torture is waiting for all people who die before converting to the One True Religion, then why do they support cutting someone's life short so they have no more chances to "repent"? Wouldn't that be the highest form of injustice?

In any case, my attitude is "live and let live" -- everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

 

[ar81]

I've spent my whole life studying religion. Various religions make mutually incompatible truth assertions about the world. That's simply a fact. To say that "religion is always true" seems to drain all meaning from the word "truth."

If we think about 35000 christian tendencies on the world, and each one claims to have the truth and each one claims that if you are not with them you go to hell... then by definition we all go to hell. :lol:

In my opinion, truth is a subjective perception. Someone may be your friend and that's true, but if you think he is your enemy, that's true.

What displeases me about religion is not the claims on truth, but the incomplete and oversimplfied "truth".

If you have an elephant and you have your eyes closed, if you touch it you could say it is like a sphere, some others say it is a column, some others say it is flat, some others say it is long and flexible like a snake.
Who has the truth? Everyone and no one at the same time. Incomplete truths are easier to understand, but it denies the symbolic nature of a whole truth.

Symbols are in my view, understood intuitively, while partial truths are concrete and understandable with reason and thinking. Symbols are something you can't describe with a concrete definition or see, but you can see the result of its actions.

That is how I understand things and that is the best model I have been to develop in my understanding of what truth is.

 

[Tschachim]

In my opinion, truth is a subjective perception.

Well, it depends on what "truth gathering system" you use. Some religions seem to use old books for that with at least "strange" results (creationism for example), but I prefer to observe the reality as good and as "objective" as possible with IMHO better results, but this is probably a little bit boring for religious people...

Cheers
Tschachim

 

[RichWall]

What has caught my attention as of late is that in recent years, Manuscripts have been discovered for "The Gospel of Thomas", "The Gospel of Phillip", "The Gospel of Mary" and even "The Gospel of Judas".

Then it got me thinking about the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD where canon used today was decided upon. Some writings of the apostles were included and some not. This was decided by, yes, you guessed it, People.

These Gospels were interesting in that they were "Gnostic" which does not require a belief in 1) a virgin birth, 2) a physical resurrection of Christ, 3) A priest or church figure was not required as an intermediary, for salvation.


The Gospel of Judas was particularly interesting in that it paints a picture of Judas as being a hero to Jesus because he was the only apostle to understand that the only way for Jesus' teachings would stick and bring about social change was that Jesus would have to become a martyr.

There is a new idea out there called the Gospel of Inclusion which states, there is only a heaven (Which may not be a place, but a state of being or mind), there is no hell, and Jesus did save us by his philosophy and teachings by introducing the "Concept of Compassion" into the human mainstream.

Without this "Concept of Compassion" the human race was headed back to either a primal state or oblivion.

The idea is that Jesus did save us already and no further action on our part is required or sought other than to maintain a sense of "Dignity" towards one another and to acknowledge the Divinity in all of us as demonstrated by our gift of free will.

 

[Arrowstar]

The idea is that Jesus did save us already and no further action on our part is required or sought other than to maintain a sense of "Dignity" towards one another and to acknowledge the Divinity in all of us as demonstrated by our gift of free will.

This comes back to a 'faith only vs good works' argument that has been going on for quite some time. Of course, this is obviously more a matter of your particular branch of Christianity than it is atheism vs not. For example, some branches believe the world has a pre-determined fate and those who will be saved will be saved (Calvinists?), others believe that simple by faith alone they will be saved, and others believe that good works along with faith is necessary to be saved.

An interesting topic, but perhaps suited for a different thread.

 

[Urwumpe]

For example, some branches believe the world has a pre-determined fate and those who will be saved will be saved (Calvinists?), others believe that simple by faith alone they will be saved, and others believe that good works along with faith is necessary to be saved.

If I am not a heretic, my branch belongs to the "faith only can bring salvation", but doing something good is never bad.

What keeps me from going into church, is mostly the atmosphere. It is a constant lament, unless they celebrate christmas. In my theory, this is because of the large number of old women and widows in the community.

An interesting topic, but perhaps suited for a different thread.

Agreed!

 

[tblaxland]

Where do modern, "unchurched" Europeans get their values? When parents teach their children right and wrong, what do they cite as the authority for the values they teach?

Basically I believe morality comes from nature, and from evolution, which I think is something most of you will agree on. The interesting thing is how what is "good" and "bad" can be objective (in some sense of the word), since it is defined by nature and not by us, and it should be the same for every human.

I obviously can't answer your question from a European perspective but our family is "unchurched" and has two young children, so I can give you our perspective. The moral authority that we state in teaching write and wrong is effectively the principle of natural law which seems to be much the same as Juanelm's assertion above. For example, we don't teach "don't hit you sister because God says it is bad", but we do teach "don't hit your sister because it will make her feel hurt, and you would not want that for yourself".

 

[RichWall]

An interesting topic, but perhaps suited for a different thread.

Perhaps, but it does address the issues and requirement of a belief of the supernatural that most atheists have an issue with of main stream religion.

 

[Andy44]

In my darker moments, I would even claim, that the religions are even just a way, to brainwash us from our morals. Religion can take doubts from you. Killing is naturally bad and we have a natural resistance against killing other humans (unless we are mentally ill) - but religions can reduce the resistance if you can expect a reward for the action.

Actually, what you've described sounds more like the State than the Church, at least in modern times in the Western world. The state trains soldiers to overcome their natural tendency to not kill people, and trains policemen to believe that their badges place them in a position in which the use of violence will be more easily justified.

As for the source of morality among non-religious people, I tend to agree with the "natural law" line of thinking, and I think it applies to everyone, including those who are religious.

Natural law is natural because it's based on human nature, which has evolved a strong sense of empathy among humans. Stealing and killing is bad because humans can empathize with their fellows, they can envision how bad it would be to be stolen from or threatened with death, and they can put themselves in each others' shoes. They can also think ahead and imagine they might need the kindness returned someday.

Note that there is a quote from Christ about "do unto others as they would do unto you"; duh!, he was just repeating was most people already knew. Sociopaths and others who commit crimes against persons and property are unable to feel empathy, or able to ignore it at least temporarily.

This feeling of empathy is most strong between individuals. It breaks down as you apply it to larger organizations, or to individuals who have been painted as different or less than human. Stealing from WalMart fits into the former category, and cheering when bad things happen to rich people fits into the latter. It's a lot harder to harm someone when you look them in the eye and cannot deny their humanity, but ripping off a corporation seems easy by comparison.

 

[bujin]

There is a new idea out there called the Gospel of Inclusion which states, there is only a heaven (Which may not be a place, but a state of being or mind), there is no hell, and Jesus did save us by his philosophy and teachings by introducing the "Concept of Compassion" into the human mainstream.

Without this "Concept of Compassion" the human race was headed back to either a primal state or oblivion.

The idea is that Jesus did save us already and no further action on our part is required or sought other than to maintain a sense of "Dignity" towards one another and to acknowledge the Divinity in all of us as demonstrated by our gift of free will.

But Jesus only really "saved" the humans that lived in the Middle Eastern states. What about those cultures around the world, such as China, which were a lot more advanced than the Middle East and who were not descending into a primal state? They seemed to manage without his intervention for around 600 years after Jesus' death* until Christianity was first introduced to the country, and it has never been a majority religion there.


* they had coped for many thousands of years before that.

 

[Ghostrider]

But Jesus only really "saved" the humans that lived in the Middle Eastern states. What about those cultures around the world, such as China, which were a lot more advanced than the Middle East and who were not descending into a primal state? They seemed to manage without his intervention for around 600 years after Jesus' death* until Christianity was first introduced to the country, and it has never been a majority religion there.


* they had coped for many thousands of years before that.

I may be mistaken, but hadn't Jesus sent some subversion agents - err, extra apostles a bit everywhere to spread the word, and hadn't he left some clear instructions to his followers to do the viral salvation thing?

 

[jedidia]

There is a new idea out there called the Gospel of Inclusion which states, there is only a heaven (Which may not be a place, but a state of being or mind), there is no hell, and Jesus did save us by his philosophy and teachings by introducing the "Concept of Compassion" into the human mainstream.

Thats VERY bad theology. As well as very bad cultural study of the subject. The "Concept of compassion" was present and important all through the old testament. It didn't have to be introduced.
Jesus "saving act" theologically can only be explained as the salvation from sin. There really is nothing else the Jews had to be saved from.

 

[bujin]

I may be mistaken, but hadn't Jesus sent some subversion agents - err, extra apostles a bit everywhere to spread the word, and hadn't he left some clear instructions to his followers to do the viral salvation thing?

I'd be interested in reviewing the evidence for that.

 

[tblaxland]

I'd be interested in reviewing the evidence for that.

I wouldn't take Ghostrider's words literally, but fairly close. For example, the "Great Commission":

Matthew 28:19-20:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Also:

Mark 16:
15. And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation..."
20. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.] [[b]And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

 

[bujin]

Ok. Any sources of evidence that are NOT in the Bible? Such as in Chinese history, for example?