Atheism vs Theism

[Maciamo]

Maciamo:

"At one time, we (I) too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, He saved us (me), not because of righteous things we (I) had done, but because of His mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out in us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by His grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying."

You are so misled and prejudiced ! I only believe what I see because I know your reason has been spoiled by religion. How can you believe that atheists are "deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures" or "live in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another" ? This is one of the most outrageous accusation I have seen on this forum, and forcedly can only come from the twisted and hypocritical mind of a true Christian.

I see from your IP address that you ar from North Carolina. Not surprising that you should live in the Bible belt.

EDIT : Now that I think about it, I am not surprised that you "lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another". This is typical of people whose mind is dominated by emotions rather than reason. It is thus easier to understand that philosophy is a much harder path for you than religion. Just try not to assume that "vice" is associated with atheism. If it is, it will almost always be associated with "weak atheism" (=no belief at all), i.e. people who are too lazy/disinterested to think about their own metaphysical beliefs. Strong atheism is a spiritual belief of its own right, and typically requires deep introspection (meditation) combined to strong rational skills and a lot of historical, scientific and philosophical knowledge.

 

[Maciamo]

People can be happy with pretty much anything, but just believing something because it makes you happy is not very intellectually honest. This is just falling to the "ignorance is bliss" argument. Besides, someone who doesn't want to think about their own believes shouldn't be so eager to preach it on everyone (yes, even on their children), yet most Christians do it all the time kashii:
...
I think desire for real knowledge is much more fulfilling than trying to destroy your own logic in order to accept the religion's "truth".

I completely agree again. "Ignorance is bliss" should in fact become the motto of Christianity and Islam.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

A personal belief is never considered as religion.

Two dictionaries I have looked at disagree with you. From dictionary.com
Religion
1. a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

Only the second definition does not fit with 'religion as personal belief'. I think what you are saying applies to the term 'organised religion'.

I do have to disagree with Kinsao and Revenant that religion helps people to be moral. I don't think it makes a jot of difference. I think it is consideration of others' feelings that helps us to be moral, and this is equally possible for a religious person or an atheist. I know plenty of religious people, whose beliefs give them this arrogance that makes then condemn people for the slightest (what they see as) transgression. This is a highly immoral attitude, IMHO. Pararousia is an excellent example, as Maciamo has pointed out. I think intolerance is one of the most immoral faults someone can have, and she seems to have it in buckets. Of course I also know people whose beliefs inspire compassion, who really do try to live as Jesus taught, like Sabro here or my friend Grace in the 'real world'. And I know good and bad people who are agnostics or atheists.

As for religion making people happy. Well, I'm with Epicurus - I think a happy life needs to be an examined life. So if a religious person has thought about about it, and concluded that their religion suits them, fine. But I cannot reconcile with those who refuse to question. This makes me think of an episode of King of the Hill, when they went to Japan. The family spent the whole week in a tiny room, only to find out when they opened the 'cupboard' that they had spent the week in the hallway, and a penthouse suite lay beyond. If you know about the penthouse and choose the hallway, fine - the ascetic life has its merits. But if you never knew about the penthouse, what a waste!

 

[Maciamo]

Two dictionaries I have looked at disagree with you. From dictionary.com
Religion
1. a) Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b) A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion

These are the common people definition, not academic or philosophic ones. What we need is a serious encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

Anyway, 1.a) does not specify but implies that it is institutionalised. This definition only includes monotheism or polytheism that have a creator. By this defintion, Buddhism, Shintoism or several ancient polytheism aren't religions.
1.b) IMO is just a "common usage" or "slang".
2. What's that definition ? Never heard the word used in that sense.
3. That is also what I mean. The spiritual leader can be Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha or whatever. However, this definition is clearly inacurrate as it forget that many religions do not have one spiritual leader but many (e.g. the prophets in Judaism, and even Christianity), and some do not have universally recognised leaders at all (e.g. Hinduism, Shintoism, Greco-Roman polytheism...).
4. This is the metaphoric meaning such as in "His job is his religion" or "Baseball is like a religion for him".

We see immediately that according to dictionary.com, Greco-Roman, Norse or Egyptian polytheism, Buddhism and Shintoism are not religions, as they do not match any of the 4 definitions. Same for many of the "new religions".

The purpose of dictionaries is not to be accuarte but give a quick idea of what a word mean. Even the well-respected Oxord Dictionary cannot cope with specialist knowledge, although it is slightly better than dictionary.com. Their definition is :

1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

This time, no question of a spiritual leader, no creator of the universe, no "life or condition of a person in a religious order", and no mention of "personal belief", but a "system of faith or worship". No 3 is the metaphor.

Moral of the story, don't trust amateur definitions of dictionaries. These are not proper and well-thought definitions. That is mainly why dictionary.com needs 4 definitions to define 1 thing (+ a metaphorical usage), and why definitions vary (sometimes a lot) from one dictionary to another.

 

[Kinsao]

I do have to disagree with Kinsao and Revenant that religion helps people to be moral.

Did I say that? :?
Anyway, there is no way I'm saying that people without a belief in a god cannot be 'moral' in their ideals and behaviours! :relief:

I agree with your last para, Tsuyoiko. Of course, people should have the freedom of choice. If they are 'indoctrinated' into a religion and simply follow the rules out of fear and/or ignorance, that's obviously not a good thing. However, IMHO it's possible for 'thinking' people to still choose one or other religion (either personal belief or 'organised' religion) out of their own free will and remain open-minded, questioning and tolerant in an intelligent and informed way. :wave:

 

[Tsuyoiko]

These are the common people definition, not academic or philosophic ones. What we need is a serious encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

But aren't we in this discussion as 'common people', rather than academics or philosophers? IMO common definitions suffice for our purpose.

Did I say that?

Maybe not - sorry if I overstated your meaning :sorry:

 

[Kinsao]

Maybe not - sorry if I overstated your meaning :sorry:

No prob... I wasn't being sarcastic, I honestly can't remember! :blush:

 

[Maciamo]

But aren't we in this discussion as 'common people', rather than academics or philosophers? IMO common definitions suffice for our purpose.

Isn't you who studied philosophy at university ?

Anyway, you tried to disprove my argument that religion couldn't be just a personal belief by showing me some very approximate definitions. I gave you another "common people" definition from a more reliable source (Oxford) that did not disprove my argument at all. What are you trying to achieve ? It is not with approximation that we are going to make advances in the discussion.

What first point was that many people nowadays call themselves "Christian" when in fact they are just compiling a set of personal beliefs and rejecting some fundamental concepts of Christianity.

My second point was that "religions" (as opposed to simply "belief in god", "spiritual belief", "set of morals rules", etc.) usually aim at controlling people by telling them what to think or what to believe in. But of course if we are talking of "personal beliefs" not shared by anybody else (or at least not intentionally or knowingly), then it is clear that I have nothing against it - except possibly having a different opinion or disagree on the reasoning. There is nobody to control, so I am happy as it does not harm society as a whole.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

You are so misled and prejudiced !...This is one of the most outrageous accusation I have seen on this forum, and forcedly can only come from the twisted and hypocritical mind of a true Christian.

I see from your IP address that you ar from North Carolina. Not surprising that you should live in the Bible belt.

What are you implying? Are you not somewhat prejudiced against Christians or people living in the Bible belt yourself, Maciamo?
I'm certain that Perousia feels very similar to how you do when she reads some your posts, too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall her ever posting the same kind of comments that you just did. I like you Maciamo, but I really think you should feel ashamed of yourself for this post.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Isn't you who studied philosophy at university ?

Well remembered, but in the interests of democracy I am joining this discussion as a 'common person'

Anyway, you tried to disprove my argument that religion couldn't be just a personal belief by showing me some very approximate definitions.

You misunderstood. I was simply offering a different point of view. Note that I said "two dictionaries disagree with you" and "IMHO" - i.e. opinions. If I was claiming to disprove I would have said "you are wrong because..." Remember, I am INTP, I stand by my opinion that you are a J

What are you trying to achieve ? It is not with approximation that we are going to make advances in the discussion.

Neither will we make advances by turning this into an argument of semantics. I admit I fanned those flames, but let's get back to the real topic.

 

[Void]

@ Pararousia
Logic is just an instrument and as Maciamo pointed it can be used both ways to prove or disprove whatever you want, especially, if one is not restricted in choice of antecedents. And even with my little knowledge of laws of logic i feel nothing but sorry for this Jones you`ve quoted. This is merely manipulation of facts, words and definitions as we say pulled up by the ears.

As for 3-D and other pictures it as well can be said by atheists to any Christian: look from another side, yours are not the only one perspective.

You know, i still refuse to believe that this bulky aluminum cigar is capable of flying But continue to buy tickets and go from one place to another. But apart from silly joking, when i was reading this example one thought crossed my mind: do you remember the very first movie "Arrival of the train" (it`s not the exact name, but i don`t remember) and how people who saw it reacted? Today no one runs away from the cinema theatre. Why?

btw, what is spiritual thinking? How it differs from awe, or just thinking?
And if reading Bible i notice inconsistencies i should close my eyes just because it is inspired by God (says who?) It seems Bible stays consistent because hundreds of people want it to be. Fine with me, but why should i accept it as the only and the absolute truth? Why should i be judged by my attitude toward this book? It always seemed to me that OT and NT not really comply with each other, and more likely the idea of Trinity is brought up by people to convince themselves that those two books speak about the same god

@ Revenant

Religion wouldn't be around were it not fulfilling some quota for happiness.
It is after all happiness that we are all after, and if religion brings
someone happiness, then I would say it is a good thing for the most part.

i think the very first idea of religion was not about happiness, but more
likely about sence of security and reassuarance. The god (gods) is to help, to
support, to protect. A bit later it is used to tie people, as a tool to impose
obedience. Perhaps, at early ages it was justified, but very questionable in
modern times.
Perhaps people feel themselves safe and undisturbed but is it happiness and not just... mmmmm.... comfortness?

I remember that strange feeling at Fatima. I can`t find the proper equvivalent
for russian word, so will make one up (gomen) It is just prayerfulness of the place or prayerfillness Very similar i`ve noticed in US. My host family was quite religious and every sunday i had to visit church with them. I could see all those people inspired by united prayer. There is nothing bad about such happiness for except one thing: the idea of God - that is what got them united. This is not that i feel compassion and empathy toward people in... let`s say Zimbabwe... just because we are all in this beauty together and share common human needs, joys and problems. This is not that i care about nature just because every part of it is a part of life and environment i live in. This is not that i am happy with my intellectual discoveries.
Many people getting behind church`s doors can`t keep that inspiration. Because their joy needs this intermediary called god. They find strength in him. And what good about such happiness if in fact religion which claims to unite people does this only to its followers, intentionally separating them from the rest of the world, rising subtle arrogance and sense of perfectness?

====
jeez, people you are so exuberant i am having tough times followin you

 

[Revenant]

I wasn't putting forth that only religions can help people be moral. I did say that although religions do attempt to teach a higher spirituality, but that they weren't the only ways that one could come to these higher spiritualities. A higher spirituality as being true compassion for everyone, serenity, gratitude, loss of ego, etc, etc. In short, what I was trying to say is, whatever philosophy/ideology/theology works and makes one happy and compassionate is a good philosophy/ideology/theology. Atheism works well for some, while monotheism works well for others.

The people who truely do try and find the truth in the Bible, or the Quran, or any other major religion's scriptures, will naturally home in on the verses that are of importance, and skip that which is of little relevence to being a better person (how many times has even a fundamentalist read the record of kings of Judah?). After all, prophecies are of little use to one who cannot know which of the many interpretations is correct, and regardless of which interpretation is correct, it makes little difference in how one should conduct oneself.

In the time that I was a Christian, I looked carefully at the verses that spelled out what it was to love, what traits a Christian was to take on, and what traits a Christian was to rid himself of. I looked carefully at the definitions of these traits, drawing lines of connection between the traits. When I was introduced to Buddhism, Buddhism spelled out much more clearly that which the Bible only made mention of, and Buddhism's logical explanations were the same explanations that I came to from carefully looking at these verses.

What am I trying to say? I'm trying to say that monotheism does have a certain amount of truth to them, or rather that all the religions do. I dislike this 'ignorance is bliss' argument being put forth, cause I do know some very well thought out monotheists that are compassionate, they know that religious laws such as the one going against homosexuality is a personal choice, and they would never try and legislate their chosen morality. They are able to reconcile most of their faith with science and philosophy. That which they do not understand they can successfully ignore, or put on a backburner. I see that as a very good thing.

Christianity, as demonized as it has become these day, still does inspire many people to be better people, and to do compassionate things. My aunt and uncle, spent four years in Africa helping out at the hospitals, in large part, cause as my aunt said 'As Christians, we are called to compassion'.

Would they be better off becoming atheists, and sticking with philosophy only? I don't know that that would do them a lot of good, they are already among the best people I know.

 

[Kinsao]

I would like to throw in a thought (excuse me for irrelevance; I don't have the brain to keep up with all arguments :sorry: ): if people act in 'moral' way, it is good (regardless of their beliefs/non-beliefs). But if people are only 'moral' when they want to be, well, that's good up to a point yes, but I would have thought that to be truly 'moral' also means acting in 'moral' way even when it doesn't suit you at all, and it's the last thing you want to do. 'Moral' behaviour goes beyond just how people want to behave, and makes people modify their behaviour to some outside 'law' (for want of a better word) even when it doesn't agree with their personal feelings/inclinations. And this whether or not they believe in a god(s) (as was pointed out, atheist can equally well be 'moral' person).

 

[Tsuyoiko]

That made me think of something Kinsao. Why does someone act in a moral way? Is it for the hope of some reward? For a Christian who lives as Jesus taught (or repents if they don't live well enough), they have that promise of eternal life. Couldn't it be argued that this reward they hope for makes their moral acts of less value than an atheist who acts morally with no expectation of reward? Isn't Jesus' promise of this reward at odds with his admonition that "your right hand shouldn't know what your left is doing"? Let me be clear I say this for arguments sake only - I'm not stating a belief.

 

[lexico]

an atheist who acts morally with no expectation of reward ?

I believe that your idea actually started with Jesus saying that. While the saducees believed in earthly retribution and the pharisee in retribution in after life, the idea of doing natural, good deeds for their own sake is not to be found in the classical world before Jesus. Many of his parables and sayings resemble what teachers of wisdom offered s.a. Socrates. Had Paul and/or the apologists not gone to extremities to build strong arguments to defend Christian ideas, Christianity might not have acquired such strong dogmatic tendencies. Is it possible to imagine a school of philosophy based on Jesus sayings, parables, and ideas about the universe ?

 

[Kinsao]

Well, I think if someone does something that they believe to be 'right', only because they think they will get a reward, there is no moral value in them doing that thing.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Is it possible to imagine a school of philosophy based on Jesus sayings, parables, and ideas about the universe ?

I think it's very possible, and they probably exist. I googled it, but all I got was stuff about the early Christians, who were called 'atheist Christians' by the Romans because they didn't believe in the Roman gods.
I believe in prophets, and think of Jesus as one prophet among many. His teachings make sense to me, it's the dogma that doesn't.

 

[Maciamo]

Religion wouldn't be around were it not fulfilling some quota for happiness.
It is after all happiness that we are all after, and if religion brings
someone happiness, then I would say it is a good thing for the most part.

I forgot to say something here. If the purpose of religion is to bring happiness to people, how do you explain that the majority of the Japanese and Europeans have abandonned their religion, yet have never been happier in average compared to past centuries. Many Japanese have gone even further than the European average by no even caring tiny bit (they do not feel the urge of metaphorical questions about the existence of an almighty god, as neither Buddhism nor Shintoism have it, unlike Christianity from which European atheism derives).

I agree that some religions may give hope to the poor, the educated and the oppressed, but once people become free, afluent, educated and on the whole happier, what does religion add that non-religious spirituality and morals wouldn't ?

 

[Revenant]

I forgot to say something here. If the purpose of religion is to bring happiness to people, how do you explain that the majority of the Japanese and Europeans have abandonned their religion, yet have never been happier in average compared to past centuries. Many Japanese have gone even further than the European average by no even caring tiny bit (they do not feel the urge of metaphorical questions about the existence of an almighty god, as neither Buddhism nor Shintoism have it, unlike Christianity from which European atheism derives).

I agree that some religions may give hope to the poor, the educated and the oppressed, but once people become free, afluent, educated and on the whole happier, what does religion add that non-religious spirituality and morals wouldn't ?

I think the Japanese do very well without religion, and they are for the most part a good people. Although, I think in some ways, they do need, as many of the western nations do, a way to truth. We in the west often don't know our own emotions, or are caught up in materialism, or other stuff. I'm not recommending religion, but just a better focus on the spirit.

I would argue that religion has a lot of unnecessary stuff, and finding the truth amid all the rest of the stuff takes a lot longer than is necessary. The only thing religion might have that non-religious spirituality doesn't is a focus for their awe and wonder. The Africans had an idea of a sky god (he was too great to define), and the Polynesians called the powerful forces of nature, or the beauty the saw, mana. God, while it is now associated with many dark parts of history, still holds a sense of wonder and awe to some of it's followers.

 

[Maciamo]

What are you implying? Are you not somewhat prejudiced against Christians or people living in the Bible belt yourself, Maciamo?

I don't want to come back to definitions again, but as it seems necessary to answer your question, the Oxford Dictionary defines prejudice like this :

1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience. 2 unjust behaviour formed on such a basis.

Her assumption that atheists "live in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another" is a preconceived opinion not based on reason. It also happens to be untrue and extremely offensive. However, my saying that she had such prejudice against atheists because she came from the Bible Belt is based on experience (she is far from being the first from this region of the world with whom I have argued about religion), and is a direct result of what religious groups teach their followers there (just visit their websites to know the facts).

I'm certain that Perousia feels very similar to how you do when she reads some your posts, too.

I have the advantage of being on the side of reason and logics. So far, her arguments were only opinion, not irrefutable logical arguments or historical facts like those I use against her.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall her ever posting the same kind of comments that you just did.

This is because you didn't see what she wrote in my reputation comment to nag me just before posting the offending post. What's more I think that my post was much less offensive that what she posted. I only used her own words against her (and yet, only things she admitting being before her convertion).