Atheism: Belief or not a belief?

Thank you Rugadd.
I am always wary of how I apply things and always open to new information to help me better find a more complete view. I have found that even Logic-ist and Science-ist fit in to this broad view. It is not a bad thing to know what people dedicate their lives to or what they believe. It may not always be what they thought, but that is also part of self-discovery… discovering.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I am probably going to offend people....

Atheism, from what I have witnessed, is anti-Christianity. God, in monotheistic religions, is the “creator” and source of all moral authority. The Supreme Being. But mankind has many “Gods” that it worships and sees as their moral authority, creator and/or source of power. Money is what many worship, even though they claim to worship something else or nothing. They believe in the happiness, power and ability for it to create in their lives. Their moral compass is centered on money and the gathering and use of it. For some it is power, or fame, science or whatever.

The truly arrogant believe in their own abilities to do and provide the same for themselves. :ohmy:

Even if someone said to me that they do not believe in anything and just go through life with no fate assigned to them, all alone and having no control over anything I would ask them if they thought that luck played a role in their existence? And if they said there were no such thing as luck then I might, might believe they are the only Atheist on Earth. All other people should probably take a good long hard look at themselves and their lives and come up with a name for the religion that they actually practice… Money-ist, Power-ist, Fame-ist, Collecting Crap-ist, Hate-ist, Self-Importance-ist…

I do not blame Atheist for predominately being anti-Christian. That particular religion has done quite a bit over its course to tarnish its name. And has had a negative effect on people and their lives all throughout its history. But, then again, they should probably call themselves what they actually are… Anti-Christian-ist.

Yet another way to look at it, sure, if you think of the universe in terms of gods. Just semantics, as far as I'm concerned. A god for one can be called a focus for another. Doesn't necessarily mean that it's some kind or religion.

On the note about being anti-Christian, I wouldn't go so far as that, but merely anti-take-this-in-your-face-ism. There are atheists who do go out of their way, for whatever reason (there are many), to push others out of their beliefs. That isn't okay and it's just as bigoted and intolerant as a Fundie knocking on my door to tell me I'm going to hell. Open and honest discussion is the best way, I've found, to either convince another person why they're wrong, or to come to a point of co-tolerance. I like to just discuss why I'm not and listen to why they are and respect their decision to remain that way.

Secular morality is not much more than the passing fancy of what is commonly accepted at the time and changes with time and each passing generation. This can be seen and followed through the accounts of pass generations and cultures.

I am well aware that it is not all about me. In fact, it is not about me at all. I know what I believe and what I worship/adore. What I am not convinced of is that others have such clarity in their convictions.

Luthien wrote: Open and honest discussion is the best way, I've found, to either convince another person why they're wrong, or to come to a point of co-tolerance. I like to just discuss why I'm not and listen to why they are and respect their decision to remain that way.

Why would you want to convince another person that they are wrong?

Wescli Wardest wrote: Thank you Rugadd.
I am always wary of how I apply things and always open to new information to help me better find a more complete view. I have found that even Logic-ist and Science-ist fit in to this broad view. It is not a bad thing to know what people dedicate their lives to or what they believe. It may not always be what they thought, but that is also part of self-discovery… discovering.

For the record, I love religion. It is a wonderful way to sublimate life, something I feel everyone should do.

I do so here, with this community.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Secular morality is not much more than the passing fancy of what is commonly accepted at the time and changes with time and each passing generation. This can be seen and followed through the accounts of pass generations and cultures.

I am well aware that it is not all about me. In fact, it is not about me at all. I know what I believe and what I worship/adore. What I am not convinced of is that others have such clarity in their convictions.

So you don't trust your fellow man to have morals outside of an organized religion? It must be a very frightening world you live in!

Wescli Wardest wrote:

Luthien wrote: Open and honest discussion is the best way, I've found, to either convince another person why they're wrong, or to come to a point of co-tolerance. I like to just discuss why I'm not and listen to why they are and respect their decision to remain that way.

Why would you want to convince another person that they are wrong?

My honest understanding of how it works is that both parties have a view theat they think is the correct view. They state why they think that way, then counter each other's points, then reach an understanding of what is wrong or right. That's my understanding of it, at least. In any regard, both are trying to convince the other why the other person is wrong. It's just a way of saying, "proofing one's logic," or finding the flaws in a point or argument. I think it helps to find a better, more solid foundation for one's conclusion.

Miss_Leah wrote: There is such thing as secular morality.

only if you ignore the historical evolution of [our ideas on] morality

religious history and the history of morality are fundamentally intertwined; it is only now that we have modern, complex societies, which most definitely have sprung from our religious foundations and origins, that anyone can even conceive of the idea that religion and morality are or could be independent from each other

Miss_Leah wrote: The lack of belief in God/gods doesn't automatically mean belief in destructive social practices.

true, and i dont think its necessary to believe in God or Gods, per se, in order to want to be moral

but

in theory, the belief in "higher powers" places one in a context which he or she cannot ever hope to rise above

secular ethics mean nothing to the person who can dominate the secular world with impunity, because the underlying principle of secular ethics is that "things work better for all of us when we get along and treat each other well"

if i have the ability to wipe out 99.9999% of the earth, and totally dominate the remaining few, i have transcended the foundational constraints of modern, secular ethics

you can make the case that someone who would actually do this is not going to be swayed by fear of god either, but thats not anything you could prove and is not necessarily as reasonable as it might seem at first

supposing that someone does in fact really believe in God, it is easy to accept the possibility that such a person would restrain his or herself as a consequence of this belief

Miss_Leah wrote: It's not all about you, you know?

well, from over here it sure looks like i am the one who is dreaming this funny dream

My. Will you look at how fast this topic grew? Who knew? (don't answer that. )

:laugh:

Miss_Leah wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote: Secular morality is not much more than the passing fancy of what is commonly accepted at the time and changes with time and each passing generation. This can be seen and followed through the accounts of pass generations and cultures.

I am well aware that it is not all about me. In fact, it is not about me at all. I know what I believe and what I worship/adore. What I am not convinced of is that others have such clarity in their convictions.

So you don't trust your fellow man to have morals outside of an organized religion? It must be a very frightening world you live in!

I did not say that. I said, "Secular morality is not much more than the passing fancy of what is commonly accepted at the time" and that it, "changes with time and each passing generation."

An example is that a hundred years ago it was completely acceptable that a sixteen year old girl was wed to an older guy and that is not acceptable now.

Nor did I say that religion is the only place to obtain moral authority. As most religions have changed their own doctrine at some point to encorporate activities that would normally be outside the moral path previously laid down. And there again, it was man, secular decisions, that made those changes and told others it was backed by religion. Where most religions have strict laws that are not subjective.