Atheism vs Theism

[Revenant]

When I speak of the loss of ego, it is to say that much of what we hold as important, actually gets in the way of empathy. Humans are social animals, and the need to connect is there. The deeper the connection, the happier both parties will be.

In a study of Buddhist meditators, the Buddhist meditators both showed the ability to read the microexpressions better than any other people, and to the ability to reason while not losing their cool, but simply reasoning with friendliness, even in the face of very confrontational people.

In the first, I theorize that since these meditators practice focusing on one thing, and being able to mute all else, that they were also able to mute their opinions, judgements, and other inner dialogue to truely focus in on what the other person was saying and feeling. This is something that is difficult to do, but that a Buddhist, through the practice of being able to at will focus on one thing, were able to do very well.

In the second, the Buddhists were able to maintain serenity, and simply answer with reasoned calmness, and still showing friendliness to the opposing side. Can I do that? Not always. I at times lose it with my family (I just feel irritated with them).

In short, I really did mean egotism, and I really do feel there are a lot of subtle forms of it.

 

[Kinsao]

Phew, there are so many things to read, and I have feeling to want to answer, which is useless, but maybe I answer some things anyway... :blush:

I do not deny that there are good moral elements in the NT.

If there is no such thing as a god/deity/whatever you call it, the word "moral" makes no sense. Because so, how can anyone judge "moral" or "good" behaviour? :? What means the "good" behaviour or to do the "right" thing? Sometimes, people can feel that they want to do something, they feel it's somehow morally "right" or "good" even if there is maybe risk to themselves (going against the basic instincts for self-preservation), and even if they are not going to get any praise, glory etc. (e.g. no-one is around to see them do this "right" thing). People can feel like that even if they have no belief in a god or a "reward". Why? From where is the "moral" standard? (I am not being rhetorical, I am wondering really!)

That must be convenient for people with a lot of sins on their conscience.

Hear hear. I can't understand how anyone can seriously think if they simply believe in or trust in Jesus then somehow all their sins are forgiven and then you don't have to do any more "work"?

That is why, if one does not have this personality type, even becoming Christian will not change them much (or only in the short-term, or when constantly encouraged to do so by the community, but not in other situations).

Actually I disagree with that. Maybe some people not naturally having "compassion" or "altruism" could be helped by their religious system to become more like that, because of a belief that they "ought" to, and/or because of help and encouragement from their community. Granted, a hope of a reward, or a concern about how they appear to others in their community, are not the best of motives for them regarding their development as people. But I would also hesitate to say that an "improvement" in their behaviour (e.g. more compassion, or something like) would not be a good thing. Obviously it would be better if their motives are selfless, but, it could still be good anyway.

In any case, what standards are compassion and altruism measured against? Why should anyone bother with them, anyway? Why not just look after number one? I'm serious.

by my standards, Jesus is not pure or sinless as he created a religion that caused wars and violence ever since its creation.

Not having known Jesus personally I can't pass an opinion on whether he was really pure or sinless. However, I think it's a bit harsh to blame him for the wars and violence that other people created.

The Judeo-Christian god is fundamentally vicious and sadistic because he had to power to create a perfectly happy world, and didn't, preferring to watch humans and animals struggle

But if god (supposing for the sake of argument that it exists) created a perfectly happy world, that would mean taking away free will from human beings. This would reduce our world to something unimaginable to us... maybe more "happiness", but how much would we lose!?

I think I talk too much. :bluush:

 

[Jack]

im atheist, its pure at thought that i dont believe in god's or anything alike it, its plain that science can pave the history of time.
I hate the fat that religion is always pushed onto people for them to believe its ridiculous.

religion causes war it has done for millions of years.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

In my old church days (Lutheran), I was taught that sin is merely "being apart from God". I don't know whether this adds to the discussion, but it might be good to come to a common definition of sin. I think it might also be a good idea to try to come to a common definition (that EVERYONE regularly posting on this thread) can agree to on other points, too, such as religion. To this end, using dictionaries is nice for insight, but instead of purely deferring to dictionaries and then making our own conclusions about what that implies and then adding that to the definition without consensus, it might further the discussion for us to come up with our own definitions purely for the benefit of this thread. Otherwise, if everyone has their own personal definition, misunderstandings are inevitable.
I realize that the issue of definitions was taken up earlier, but I felt that it was not resolved even nearly adequately.

 

[Jack]

good point,
but seriously what is sin?
its what i denote as something religious folk denote as being wrong or in the eyes of their gods as being bad.

 

[Kinsao]

That's a good point. If someone does not believe in the existence of a god or gods, there is no such thing as "sin". Of course, there are actions which people think of as being "wrong" (or at least, wrong in certain circumstances), but the concept of "sin" also depends on believing in the concept of "god".

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

You see what I'm getting at here. We could define sin as "an act that is morally wrong" but then we need to come to a common basis for judging what is morally wrong. If we are serious about trying to come to some conclusion, though, I think it would be worth the effort. :blush:

 

[Tsuyoiko]

However, there are a few people who keep their arguments strictly on one side of the extreme or the other such as "religion has all the answers", or "science has all the answers", and I must say that it is starting to wear thin on my patience.

You sound like Stephen Jay Gould!

It is okay to believe in what you want to believe in, but to denounce another person?fs beliefs just because you don?ft agree with it is unacceptable as it shows ignorance, egotistical values, and the failure to willingly be open minded.

I agree. Lack of emotional intelligence, to put it another way.

You understand don?ft you Tsuyoiko?

I do now! Thanks for the explanation Doc!

 

[Tsuyoiko]

True Christianity teaches that inspite of our sins, we can have heaven because of the sole act of Jesus the Christ. We believe His act (death, burial and resurrection from the dead) was propitiatory and totally sufficient to forgive our sins and provide us with redemption.

So you are motivated by the hope of some reward?

I said "I pray for you to know "the mystery of God and the hidden treasures of Christ."

I understand that you did not mean to offend, but I understand why Maciamo found this offensive. First of all, you assume that you know better than Maciamo himself what is good for him, and that is not your place. Secondly, I find it offensive when someone prays for you without your permission. I call it 'spiritual rape'.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

If there is no such thing as a god/deity/whatever you call it, the word "moral" makes no sense.

I don't agree. I think an immoral act is one that causes unnecessary harm. But then you have the problem of defining 'unnecessary harm'. I go with 'greatest good of the greatest number' as the ideal, but doubt I could ever apply that in practice.

its what i denote as something religious folk denote as being wrong or in the eyes of their gods as being bad

This definition of 'sin' works for me. I would prefer to stick to more neutral terms, 'moral' and 'immoral'. I think these terms work equally well in the secular and rligious realms.


BTW Sorry for the triple post, just wanted to be unusually organised

 

[Void]

1
athough, i had an intention on elaborating this thought in another thread, i guess it is also an appropriate place

My country witnessed what is called in literal translation "militant atheism" and what can be called "crusading atheism". Tsarist regime was condemned as one only exploiting poor people and religion - as its handy tool ??alled "opium for the nation". Ideas of equality, solidarity and some other slogans were voiced all over. Many churches were destroyed and many priests were killed, treasures - expropriated. "there is no God! it`s a concept used to fool you, people!"
Total literacy,schools and knowledge for everyone became one of the goals of the new government.
Political party announced its program, enlightened the future and took
over the country. Civil war, famine, great projects (such as electrification),
NEP... There is no doubt that with growing level of literacy and education
many people (besides there were many left from 'old regime') started to ask
uneasy questions. An these are also the time of develpment of new system of
rules, traditions and dogmas - which supposed to be the basis of new Soviet
society. And questioning this basis (remember, atheism flourished, though
old folks still kept their believes and some churches were spared) would be
considered a serious crime, such doubts equaled 'mortal sins' in religion new regime overthrown.
For weak, uneducated, overemotional and such people new ideology became a religion. Which is certainly eased task for those who governed - they posessed a mean to control big society, to expose and eliminate doubting and disturbing ones.

Btw, even genetics was not longly accepted because its development started at capitalist west

By the example of my country it is clear that everything taken to its extremes
is harmful: whether it`s a religion of any kind or atheism


2
i can`t say the westernes in general lack self-reflection. Growth of philosophy and psychology proves that it is not so. I don`t think it is a matter of concentration on materialistic or spiritual staff There is smth else. But my thought is not really clear now.
As well, i don`t think that the concept of 'moral' makes no sence outside the religion. It makes no sense only outside human society. BTW, 'good' and 'evel' are also functions dependant on such variable as particular form of society, or social strata. Since we are social beings and bound to live together - it can be one of the reasons to create rules regulating the behavior (Hammurappi`s (sp?), Mosaic, Roman and any other laws are the part of this moral system which evolves altogether with society)

I tend to think that religions will evolve (Christianity, at least, already accepted some scientific ideas). And i don`t see any reason why they have to change the name. If it is named after its founder (as Jesus Christ) it can easily keep the name. There are sveral branches already, they have some theological disagreements, they all differ from the earliest followers but they all still Christians. For me true Christian is the one who follows the Christ`s commandments, but not the one who follows the rituals of the institution called "religion"

3
It is noticed long ago that in US it is relation-based ecounter with God, sometimes up to befriending (no offence!). I remember Exupery wrote that this is the way one 'equalizes' God with oneself, brings Him on the same step of the ladder, it`s almost like bargain which puts away all these divine omni- properties.

Ok, i won`t speak about idea of heaven brought to everyone by Jesus, because most of those hypotetical "everyone" will find it offencive. I just ask one question: to believe in Jesus enough to face the heaven? Sorry, but i can`t help not being sarcastic.

And for the hundredth time on JRef about colour perception - my red is different from Maciamo`s red, from Pararousia`s and from someone else`s red.
BTW, eskimo people have at least 10 words for the differen hews of white (hope, i am not much mistaking in number )

well, i`ll stop for now, since i`ve lost the trace of the thought i`ve been following. What a pity for me, but blessing for you - less crap to read

 

[Maciamo]

If there is no such thing as a god/deity/whatever you call it, the word "moral" makes no sense. Because so, how can anyone judge "moral" or "good" behaviour? :? What means the "good" behaviour or to do the "right" thing? Sometimes, people can feel that they want to do something, they feel it's somehow morally "right" or "good" even if there is maybe risk to themselves (going against the basic instincts for self-preservation), and even if they are not going to get any praise, glory etc. (e.g. no-one is around to see them do this "right" thing). People can feel like that even if they have no belief in a god or a "reward". Why? From where is the "moral" standard? (I am not being rhetorical, I am wondering really!)

So basically you think that anybody who does not believe in god cannot have morals. This is absolutely false. The sense of morality existed well before religions. It can be argued that some animals (e.g. dogs, dolphins...) can even behave morally. Buddhists do not believe in god, but have a developed moral. Most "strong atheists" have a moral based on reason and humanism. Ethics, one of the 4 main branches of philosophy, studies moral behaviours and values. Please read the article on Wikipedia. Humans are social beings, and life deprived of morals would mean an end to interpersonal relationships, Societies and civilisations cannot exist or proser without moral. My opinion is that religions such as Christianity and Islam have an outdated and unflexible moral code, and that unless they adapt to modern society, their effect on civilisation ends up doing more harm than good. Religions may be necessary to teach people who cannot think by themselves what is good and what is bad, but they should do it properly. The moral teachings of religions would be ok with me if they were reformed by contemporary philosophers to adjust them to our times. One of the main issue with Christianity is the ambiguous and metaphorical language used, so that everybody can understand the message differently (with potentially disastrous effects). Unless these religions are reformed, religious people will have potentially lower/more harmful morals than philosophical people.

Hear hear. I can't understand how anyone can seriously think if they simply believe in or trust in Jesus then somehow all their sins are forgiven and then you don't have to do any more "work"?

Well, that's something you have to discuss with Pararousia. For my part, I agree with you.

Not having known Jesus personally I can't pass an opinion on whether he was really pure or sinless. However, I think it's a bit harsh to blame him for the wars and violence that other people created.

If he was a mere mortal, then I agree with you. But if he was indeed one with god, or carried the message of god, then he should have known better and used less ambiguous language. The wars of religion that followed the Protestant Reformation were due to this ambiguity, and rivalries between interpretations continue to this day.

But if god (supposing for the sake of argument that it exists) created a perfectly happy world, that would mean taking away free will from human beings. This would reduce our world to something unimaginable to us... maybe more "happiness", but how much would we lose!?

Not necessarily. He could have created more naturally peaceful, sociable and amiable people, with all their free-will. Note that some people are naturally more aggressive, fight-picker, trouble-maker or confrontational than others. This is partly due to testosterone levels in blood. But god could have done better, that is sure.

 

[Maciamo]

I understand that you did not mean to offend, but I understand why Maciamo found this offensive. First of all, you assume that you know better than Maciamo himself what is good for him, and that is not your place. Secondly, I find it offensive when someone prays for you without your permission. I call it 'spiritual rape'.

Thank you, Tsuyoiko. Yes, I was spiritually raped.

 

[Kinsao]

So basically you think that anybody who does not believe in god cannot have morals.

No, I believe I said at some point earlier that of course atheists can have "moral" behaviour. I was just wondering from where comes the standard by which we judge "moral" (whether it is human or animal "moral" behaviour even). Not disputing that such exists.

 

[lexico]

I said at some point earlier that of course atheists can have "moral" behaviour. I was just wondering from where comes the standard by which we judge "moral" (whether it is human or animal "moral" behaviour even). Not disputing that such exists.

Yes, I also remember you have. How about the golden standard ?

For example, (borrowing a Christian idea) "Do to others as you would have them do to you."
( from a Confucius idea), "Don't to anything to others that you wouldn't like when they do it to you."

Although these might be too simple to cover all possibilities, at least the principle seem to have universal quality of fairness and openness to empathy.

 

[Revenant]

Having nothing to do with what is being discussed.

I was just thinking on this idea of repentence. Repentence requires one feel truely sorry for the harm one has done. But to truely feel sorry requires one already have an inherent or developed sense of empathy.

So while a Christian would argue that people can't get to heaven by being good, i.e. moral -> my definition -> empathetic, then only those who were already 'good' could get into heaven.

Does this make sense, or am I way off?

 

[Pararousia]

Off-topics don't matter on forums like this one, as diverting discussions can be split into a new thread or merge with another any time. This is what I intend to do here soon. If you wanted to stay perfectly on topic, then we had to stop all discussions after giving a satistying definition of atheism.

Could a moderator put a disclaimer at the top of this thread because it says I started it and it's actually a split off from another thread?

Thanks.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

1. To be just, one must give to another exactly what that individual deserves to get, no more and no less.
2. To be fair, one must treat everyone equally.
3. To be merciful is to give an individual more than what they deserve to get (in reward) or less than what they deserve to get (in punishment).
4. Being merciful is therefore unjust.
5. Unless everyone can be treated with the same degree of mercy or kindness, to be merciful or kind to any one person is to be unfair.

Sorry to backtrack so far, but I just saw this quote:

Injustice arises when equals are treated unequally, and unequals are treated equally

Not sure if this is the right place to mention it, but can't see anywhere else, and just wanted to share the infinitely wise view of A C Grayling. He suggests that

by law no one's private beliefs should be allowed to cause a nuisance or an injury to anyone else