Is Atheism the new way?

[Minnie31]

You know I ask that question a lot myself. I am a believer, but I fail to see what is all the hullabaloo about atheism. I know a good many, they are all just like everyone else. They work, play and raise families just like anyone else. They just don’t find God a concept they can agree to.

One is not in control of what one believes. One can only do the best one can to learn as much as one can and then the mind chooses what it will to accept.

I fail to understand this phenomenon. IF you can believe it, there is actually a thread that asks whether atheism should be allowed? As if we lived in N. Korea or something. It’s disgusting and disheartening that people can live in a free society and yet adhere to such bizarre and archaic ideas.

Thank you for posting this SpiritMeadow. It makes me happy when believers recognize that atheists can be good people and that belief is something that one cannot control. Oftentimes belief is mistaken as a choice like deciding whether you want the light on or off.

I fail to understand this phenomenon. IF you can believe it, there is actually a thread that asks whether atheism should be allowed? As if we lived in N. Korea or something. It’s disgusting and disheartening that people can live in a free society and yet adhere to such bizarre and archaic ideas.

I saw that thread and had to read it twice, thinking is this for real?

 

[Greg27]

Europe is becoming more secular, but religion is quite strong in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Catholicism now has far more believers in the developing, non-Western world and Asia than it does in the West.

I look forward to the day when the CC has an Asian or African Pope.

 

[Swan]

First of all; I never judged you. My only interest is the truth, and if I said it in an arrogant way, then I apologize. Secondly; I never said that atheists are incapable of knowing right from wrong or practicing law as they see it. You alone said that. And neither did i say that I can prove morality as being “objectively true” and morally binding on all humans. Objectivity and “truth” is the issue at hand. Atheists reject God because they do not think that God and his words are “objectively true”. I am merely exposing the hypocracy and thearrogance of their beliefs as Atheists. I have every right to do that.

One can certainly practice “legalism”, and say somebody is wrong according to some “invented law”, but to say that it is “objectively true” that somebody is immoral according to your personal feelings or philosophy, rather then according to God as the objective foundation of all truth, is a fallacy.

If the root of objective reality is **objective perfection **and love, then it is possible to say that something is wrong, and that it is objectively “true” that it is wrong; since you are being measured by an objective reality. A universal truth is just as true as a mathematical law, such as 2+2=4. It is always true, whether you agree with it or not; even if human beings did not exist, it would still be true. It is eternal. If there is nothing at the root of reality, “but nature”, then it is a fallacy to say that anything is wrong or that some behavior is “morally” better or abnormal in comparison to another kind of behavior, since any attempt to do so would only be an expression of you personal feeling toward reality. It is subjective. Reality itself is neutral to you intentions or emotional expressions. It is perfectly natural for people to rape kill steal and do what ever the hell they want. To say that somebody ought not to kill that old lady, is meaningless as less you are talking about some kind of trancendent objective law. It is not “wrong” to live a selfish life if God does not exist, and it is not my fault that you don’t understand my reasoning.

I guarantee you; I would not say it if I didn’t think that it followed reason. Please study this issue for you self. I for one, believe that you have value, because I believe that it is objectively true that you have value; it’s not just a personal opinion or fantasy that I made up in my head. God is not a fantasy. Objectivity far outweighs subjectivity; and to view God as just a person who merely has an opinion, desire or philosophy, is the wrong view of God as far as reason is concerned. God is not a “legalist”; God is truly “Love” and “Perfection”, and that is why we feel and know of guilt and can know of right and wrong through the gift of conscience. As a Christian, that is the only way I can understand it. Otherwise, I would find it very difficult to rationalise my belief; especailly in respect of subjects such as “Eternal hell”.

Reading your post I can only conclude that you are terrified of the idea that there is no God. As a result, you are willing to rationalize logic as belief. In fact, as God’s existence can be neither proven nor disproven, the belief in God is entirely subjective. Personally, I believe in God. Yet I am not threatened by others’ beliefs as I don’t see how they can change what I believe to be true - in other words, the existence of God is not effected by popularity.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

There is nothing new about atheism. It’s just the same old road to hell
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[patrick457]

Prominant atheists say that dwindling numbers of Christians in Europe and the West is proof that science and reason is triumphing over myth. That religion is being finally put in its place, that soon there will be no Christians (or other religious followers) and truth will be universal.

Is the falling numbers in Christanity and the growing atheism proof there is no God?

PLEASE HELP!

Nope, it just means a lot of people are falling into the stupidity that is Atheism. Or it’s just that Atheists are getting most of the press today (after all, it’s not as if Atheism just appeared just a few days ago…It’s been here for like, centuries. It’s not really a new type of thing).

Numbers have nothing to do with it: even if 99.9% of the population believed in God that wouldn’t be a credible proof of His existence, so we could safely assume that the reasoning ‘Large numbers of Atheists=Proof that there is no God’ is just as faulty.

 

[Aleii]

Thanks to Dameedna and SpiritMeadow for some very well thought out/well written posts.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Reading your post I can only conclude that you are terrified of the idea that there is no God. As a result, you are willing to rationalize logic as belief. In fact, as God’s existence can be neither proven nor disproven, the belief in God is entirely subjective. Personally, I believe in God. Yet I am not threatened by others’ beliefs as I don’t see how they can change what I believe to be true - in other words, the existence of God is not effected by popularity.

Whether i am terrified of Gods non-existence or not, has nothing to do with whether or not my post follows logic. If what i am saying is untrue, then-please, present your case. Otherwise i fail to see the point of quoting the whole text, as if to say you actually had a good arguement, when you haven’t. All you’ve done is accuse me of fear.

Secondly, in the post you quoted, i never said i can prove Gods existence, nature, or that there was any such thing as moral law.
I said, given a naturalist conclusion, it is true that we “subjectively” value some types of behavior above others, but it is untrue to say that some act has more objective value over another. Morality, as representing an actual truth about ones behavior, is false, if the root of our reality is not objectively good, but is instead just energy and quatum fluxtuations.

 

[Swan]

Whether i am terrified of Gods non-existence or not, has nothing to do with whether or not my post follows logic. If what i am saying is untrue, then-please, present your case. Otherwise i fail to see the point of quoting the whole text, as if to say you actually had a good arguement, when you haven’t. All you’ve done is accuse me of fear.

Secondly, in the post you quoted, i never said i can prove Gods existence, nature, or that there was any such thing as moral law.
I said, given a naturalist conclusion, it is true that we “subjectively” value some types of behavior above others, but it is untrue to say that some act has more objective value over another. Morality, as representing an actual truth about ones behavior, is false, if the root of our reality is not objectively good, but is instead just energy and quatum fluxtuations.

First, I’m not arguing with you - I was simply expressing my thoughts on your post which, to me seemd really defensive - the old “who are you trying to convince” question. I remarked on this because of the previous posts asking why some believers find the idea of no god so threatening and terrifying. It was simply a comment on your perceived attutide and was not intended as any kind of name calling or attack on you at all. If this was unclear, I apologize - I can be very sensitive to the remarks of others myself and did not mean to upset you. As for me, I’m not an athiest. However, conceding that there is some kind of god, I do not agree that this greater power is the Christian “GOD”. The fact that some people chose not to believe in any kind of god concerns me not at all.

 

[phooney]

Popularity of religion or lack thereof is completely irrelevant in itself to the truth of the claim.

 

[Filius99993]

Popularity of religion or lack thereof is completely irrelevant in itself to the truth of the claim.

That’s true enough. But would you consider atheism a religion? Or is that irrelevant?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

**Atheism is defined as a disbelief in a higher power or supreme being. ** Religion is defined as a belief in a higher power or supreme being. Trying to parse words by saying atheism is a belief in nothing, i.e., the antithesis of religion, does not make it a religion. The parsing of words is used, simply to try and give it respectability where it has none.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[phooney]

That’s true enough. But would you consider atheism a religion? Or is that irrelevant?

No, I wouldn’t. I would say that a religion requires a system of beliefs in order to be a religion. Atheism, as per my signature, is simply a stance in regards to belief on one particular class of entity. Atheists could believe in ghosts, alien abduction, the loch ness monster and the living Elvis and still be atheists. It is true that you might be able to spot other statistically probable characteristics of atheists, but the only thing that athiests must neccesarily have in common is that one lack of belief.

As far as Atheism being ‘the new way’ I don’t think it is either ‘new’ or a ‘way’ if by ‘way’ you are looking for an arbitrary source to tell you how to live your life.

 

[phooney]

**Atheism is defined as a disbelief in a higher power or supreme being. ** Religion is defined as a belief in a higher power or supreme being. Trying to parse words by saying atheism is a belief in nothing, i.e., the antithesis of religion, does not make it a religion. The parsing of words is used, simply to try and give it respectability where it has none.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

While I agree that atheism isn’t a religion, it is for different reasons, as just detailed. I personally don’t see how calling something a religion gives it respectability somehow. Scientoligists would agree with you, hence the Church of Scientology, but not me.

Reasonings & critical thinkings
Phooney