• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

what atheism teaches us

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
I see no reason to believe that you can distinguish between this and "there is no God who cares about what we believe, do, or what happens to us".
Feel free to contradict me with an argument. Something more substantial than a personal belief, one I cannot distinguish from a personal delusion on your part because you have nothing to support it with besides your own authority.

Thanks,
Tom


I would take the book of Nahum as example.... Nineveh (capital of Assyria ) was used to discipline Israel and after God used that rod of judgement broke it over His knee see book of Nahum and the fall of Nineveh

If you aren't familiar with Nahum the Bible Project's summary is here...
 
Last edited:

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
This is from huff post, sorry, but you'll get the idea

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/great-work-cultures/6-ways-to-develop-an-inqu_b_7999516.html

There are more serious papers on the human my mind on Google scholar.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=what+causes+an+enquiring+mind

Jonathan Edwards (in freedom of the will) and Martin Luther (in bondage of the will) both serious scholars says we choose according to our highest desires.... and there's the rub... our desires are fallen and we desire wrongly... but made new in Christ we go from loving the gutter water of the world to the living water of heaven.... loving darkness to loving light

see Bondage of the Will by Martin
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
made new in Christ we go from loving the gutter water of the world to the living water of heaven.... loving darkness to loving light

We've been getting a good demonstration of those living waters and light in America lately.

Thanks, but I prefer what you call the gutter water of the world and darkness. I find it much more illuminating and life affirming. The world is a wonderful and beautiful place.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
We've been getting a good demonstration of those living waters and light in America lately.

Thanks, but I prefer what you call the gutter water of the world and darkness. I find it much more illuminating and life affirming. The world is a wonderful and beautiful place.


I am not wild about everything either the left or right does...
both are fallen people and neither are perfect
which is why checks and balances are a good thing
and circumventing them with a stroke of a pen is not
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Have you?
You have heard of Karl Marx and Communism?

But virtually the whole of modern economics (including Communism) is based on the idea that the only value any thing has or can have is the value that humans place upon it through the marketplace.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Jonathan Edwards (in freedom of the will) and Martin Luther (in bondage of the will) both serious scholars says we choose according to our highest desires.... and there's the rub... our desires are fallen and we desire wrongly... but made new in Christ we go from loving the gutter water of the world to the living water of heaven.... loving darkness to loving light

see Bondage of the Will by Martin

Luther died almost 500 years ago, he lived in a fairly unlightened period dominated by religion. The understanding of psychology was rather limited.

Edwards (also dead several hundred years and influenced by the same strength of religion and limited understanding of the human though process) work is invalid to in that it presupposes the existence of an omniscient god without providing evidence for his claim.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We've been getting a good demonstration of those living waters and light in America lately.

Thanks, but I prefer what you call the gutter water of the world and darkness. I find it much more illuminating and life affirming. The world is a wonderful and beautiful place.

I am not wild about everything either the left or right does...
both are fallen people and neither are perfect
which is why checks and balances are a good thing
and circumventing them with a stroke of a pen is not

My comment wasn't about political orientation, but about religious orientation. I was referring to the "living waters" of 4 out of 5 white evangelical Americans voting for a president with significant and obvious character flaws, and the same fraction of that demographic in Alabama choosing a credibly accused pedophile, and what you called "gutter water of the world and darkness" of those not "made new in Christ," which includes secular humanists, who are largely if not exclusively atheists, and made better moral judgments.

If you want to make the claim that the Christians are filled with love and light, whereas those outside of that group are in darkness and gutter water, you should be prepared to see the counterargument, which seems to support the opposite conclusion.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
Oddly, my experience was precisely the opposite. It was observing the religions that helped me understand what they were.

Well this is the dilema in my case as I do not find morality to be inherently apart of religion. I just think religious communities have more interest in morality while secular ones do not. My moral compass is primarily a result of studying evolution, Plato and Taqi Jafari's critical analysis on moral nature. I do not think it is inherent that morals be religious at all. I just found my overall experience with atheist completely lacking in morals yet alone a standard of life. Now I could find this in vegans and minimalists but that was few and going on the outskirts of secular society.

Being an atheist and a moralists just got me ridiculed and put on the fringe groups in other's eyes. I am very consistent in how I view the world and I have the same outlook on life being religious as I was being an atheist. Essentially I have remained the same person with the same amount of skepticism and moral principles.

I could see that the religions had no answers regarding morality, which does not come from a book, and is completely unrelated to behavior motivated to earn rewards and escape punishment. That's mere self-serving obedience, not authentic morality.

These books cultimate humility, transmission of right and wrong and the preservation of ethical standards. It does not mean they are great standards but standards for their time nonetheless. The fact they are old only means they need to be cherished and kept in the hearts of believers and accepted for their flaws. Great theology is great theology even if one comes to and errant conclusion out of ignorance.

I have no notion of my own power because I leave that in the hands of somebody far greater than I and it is that notion that keeps religions thriving and prospering. People appreciate religion in better forms now because they are sick of Western assault of common decency.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You have heard of Karl Marx and Communism?
I have, but I don't see how that answers the question, which was, Have you ever met an atheist of the kind you proposed ─ one who was not really an atheist but a believer pretending to be an atheist so as to feel free of moral restrictions?
But virtually the whole of modern economics (including Communism) is based on the idea that the only value any thing has or can have is the value that humans place upon it through the marketplace.
I'm hard pressed to think of anywhere where markets aren't regulated, usually in a number of ways. In the US, for example, think of agricultural subsidies, bank bailouts, stock market oversight, import restrictions, goods that can't be bought without a license, and so on.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
My comment wasn't about political orientation, but about religious orientation. I was referring to the "living waters" of 4 out of 5 white evangelical Americans voting for a president with significant and obvious character flaws, and the same fraction of that demographic in Alabama choosing a credibly accused pedophile, and what you called "gutter water of the world and darkness" of those not "made new in Christ," which includes secular humanists, who are largely if not exclusively atheists, and made better moral judgments.

If you want to make the claim that the Christians are filled with love and light, whereas those outside of that group are in darkness and gutter water, you should be prepared to see the counterargument, which seems to support the opposite conclusion.

Both candidates were significantly flawed

Unreligious people have problems as well... people are people... and there was just a major
problem with investment fraud in secular China as example.
see --> 200 Million Investors May Have Lost Everything In Largest Ponzi Scheme In China's History
 
Last edited:

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I have, but I don't see how that answers the question, which was, Have you ever met an atheist of the kind you proposed ─ one who was not really an atheist but a believer pretending to be an atheist so as to feel free of moral restrictions?
Since that isn't what I proposed, no. Some people--such as capitalists and communists--see a freedom to act to exploit other people, the resources of nature, etc., if they don't have to worry about a deity that might take exception to what they do, and/or if there are no living things that might have rights they might have to respect.

I'm hard pressed to think of anywhere where markets aren't regulated, usually in a number of ways. In the US, for example, think of agricultural subsidies, bank bailouts, stock market oversight, import restrictions, goods that can't be bought without a license, and so on.
Market/private sector failure.
Government failure.
Externalization of costs.

All regulation is based on human values. A very few countries have started to insist on intrinsic value and such concepts as ecosystem services to make markets and economic entities face closer to the true costs of their actions, all of which are undertaken for human profit/benefit. There is no guarantee that any regulation or fees ensures any non-economic preference of people, or anything else, if anything else does matter.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Atheism teaches us that humans are the greatest life form that exists. Seeing what a poor job humans are doing running things, that is not saying much. Religion teaches that there is something greater than humans.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
Atheism has undoubtedly taught me how to feel more arrogant as a theist but other than that it has taught me nothing about atheism itself. Atheists on the other hand are a whole other story :D
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
These books cultivate humility, transmission of right and wrong and the preservation of ethical standards. It does not mean they are great standards but standards for their time nonetheless. The fact they are old only means they need to be cherished and kept in the hearts of believers and accepted for their flaws. Great theology is great theology even if one comes to and errant conclusion out of ignorance.

You seem to respect these moral systems more for being ancient than for being good systems relevant to our modern lives.

Both candidates were significantly flawed

False equivalence. Only one was a sexual predator, business fraud, and non-stop liar.

A Hillary Clinton presidency probably would have been approximately like a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama presidency - steady leadership, economic growth, and Republican obstructioniism and endless calumny from conservative pundits.

Of course, there was the possibility of some of her emails getting out. And maybe an embassy somewhere would get bombed on her watch.

Trump, on the other hand, reached the one year mark with the lowest approval rating of any first-year U.S. President in the history of polling.

Thanks to Trump, the United States itself now has the lowest approval rating worldwide in the history of polling.

He was faced with the largest protests in American history on his second day in office when the Women’s March captivated the nation, and those protests were repeated on his one year anniversary.

He’s set a record for the number of White House senior advisers who have been fired or resigned in controversy in the first year.

He’s the only U.S. President to ever be under criminal investigation by the FBI in his first year as president.

Trump is the first U.S. President known to have been blackmailed by an adult film actress.

He’s the first modern U.S. President to be essentially refused entry into the United Kingdom, formerly America's closest ally.

He’s failed to fill a record number of appointed positions within the government.

He’s the only U.S. President to suspected of conspiring with a foreign government to rig the election in his favor.

And he’s set a record for confirmed lies.

The two hardly compare.

"However an analytical mind tends to be inclined to atheism." I believe that's an unproven assertion

Although the data supports the claim, it doesn't need to be proven.

What an analytical mind does well is to evaluate evidence properly, and in so doing, come to conclusions that reflect the reality demonstrated by that evidence. The confirmation that this has been done well is the accumulation of useful ideas - ideas that can help us predict and at times control outcomes. Ideas that can do that can be considered confirmed. If you've read a situation properly, you can anticipate it, and either utilize it to your advantage, or avoid any foreseeable harm.

One of the most fundamental concepts in analytical thinking is rational skepticism, or the unwillingness to believe that which is merely claimed or otherwise insufficiently supported. The application of rational skepticism leads to only one possible conclusion: atheism. Until somebody can provide compelling evidence of a god or gods, there is no reason to believe that any such thing exists. Unbelief in gods is the definition of atheism.

Faith based thought, or unjustified belief, is the only possible alternative. It is the only path to a god belief. And it is the antithesis of critical thinking.

That is why the correlation is between the analytical mind and atheism.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
You seem to respect these moral systems more for being ancient than for being good systems relevant to our modern lives.

What?

I respect them, I do not accept them as relevent or even moral in modern lives. Are you reading the same post I am?

This may surprise you but theology IS NOT ETHICS!
 
Top