Positive Aspects of Atheism?

[Vera_Ljuba]

You sound like a spoiled child…

How “charitable”.

 

[Abba]

Sorry, the word you use: “spiritual” has no meaning for me.

Okay.

Please stop the psychoanalysis. (Or as it was spelled in Ender’s Game: “Sickoanalysis”) It does not lead anywhere, especially not on an internet forum.

You are using the internet to reach out to others to see if you can come to know if God exists via discussions and learning. There is no protocol. You cannot run away and then tell yourself that you did because some unknown protocol was broken on the internet. You either want to know if He exists, or, you don’t and just want to pretend that you do, not only to others but most importantly to yourself.

I once knew a man “atheist” who died in my arms. He came clean at the end. I was shocked as I believed he really believed all his atheist arguments. At the moment of truth, I learned it was just a front because he was angry with God. This is the reason I advised you not to carry a label and seek for Him own your own as you do not know other people’s problems.

There is no protocol on this sub-forum as we are being allowed to discuss the search for God. We are not required to keep the discussion on some supposed intellectual level and not discuss other aspects which may be interfering. The important thing here is to find God - if He really does exist. You are being confronted with certain things, but, it’s for you to think about and confront yourself; I’m not asking you to share the details for all to see. But, don’t use the confrontation as an excuse to runaway.

it’s one heck of a scary thing to even think of the possibility of putting some walls down and possibly even coming to recognize the existence of God. How would this change my life? What will I have to give up?

The solution is simple. God could stop this hide-and-seek game, and come clean. I was asking for it and I still am.

Maybe you can bring some walls down and let Him in. But, you want Him to be obedient to you. How does that make sense? What God is that who you are seeking? You want it to be done your way, not His.

Peace

 

[Aloysium]

But God is subjective as interpreted by varying people and various denominations.

I do not know if the Golden Rule is true. I could very possibly be wrong, but that is ok. Likewise, to not do good may not always have consequences. There is a level of uncertainty and lack of fairness that is part of our existence. But morality as followed by an individual is typically subjective as they will choose the parameters which may or may not line up with others, even of the same faith. For example, views of contraception across Christianity.

I once believed. I do not anymore. I have tried the above several times to no avail.

To me atheism provides virtual no answers to anything. It frees me up to say “I don’t know. Maybe these things are unknowable?” It is the acceptance that I do not need an external source for the answer or that no answer is certain on this side of existence (if there is even another side).

There are problems thinking about reality as being subjective and objective. A better way would be to describe our existence as being relational. God isn’t just an aspect of our subjective life any more than is the universe with all its galaxies. At the other extreme, there are some people who consider us as being subjective parts parts of the one eternal Supreme Mind. For Christians, God is our Divine Father, to whom we relate, doing His will which is to love. Within this relationship we are reborn as His children, Christ-like.

You doubt the Golden Rule but talk about unfairness in life. It’s sort of contradictory. Either there is something to fairness and goodness or there isn’t. We do choose what good, what god we will follow. That god may be pleasure, power, fame or wealth. There are consequences in following any of these. In fact since they are all transient, they will always end in suffering. There is one good that gives life and joy, absorbing all the hurt, bringing us to transcendence. For Christians it is symbolized by the cross.

I’m not sure what you mean by trying or belief. Things either make sense or they don’t. It can also be a problem doing what we are commanded to do; it is very difficult to love sometimes. In either case whether through all your efforts, Christianity continued to make no sense, or you failed to live up to the standards it sets, you might try less, but pray more asking God for His help. In Faith, there is no trying, it is all about doing. Faith is action. Christianity is all about loving, willing the best for the other, even our enemies. And, Jesus is there to share that yoke, which as it turns out, is easy to bear.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14319040:

So in your view all the Catholics who found the evidence in DNA are delusional materialists?

When did I say that? I said there is no evidence for species to species evolution. If you believe in that you are definitely stretching the evidence to the Nth degree.

You said “Mr. Materialist (I assume you do believe in Evolution)” so implying everyone who accepts evolution is a materialist. And you said “Evolutionists believe that there is a link from Species to Species, though there is no evidence of it”, implying they are delusional.

(btw there’s lots of evidence as we share 99% genes with chimps and bonobos, and 98% with gorillas. And that’s my last word on evolution, nope, not one word more ).

In my opinion De Sade was bad to the bone. I wouldn’t try to explain him through his “troubled childhood”. He had gone willingly over to the dark side and was trying to convince people to follow him.

I know little about him, just read three short bio’s and was struck by the mercilessness of his upbringing. He spent much of his life committed to a mental hospital, and I’m not a psychologist and can’t judge the mentally ill.

 

[Abba]

I mentioned the priests because you use the sexual molestation cases as burning coals you sting the Catholics with who get too near your fortress. I will admit. It hurts but, I am standing strong.

+++

It’s hard to give up that fortress where one is king of his own kingdom and god in his own existence. There is an ancient being who had the same problem. There is nothing new under the sun. There are those who give up being the god in this existence because they believe there is life after death and accept the promise of being a god in the afterlife for - wait for it - one of their favorite words - eternally.

I know a Mormon who plans to pick up a beef with the Christian God when he becomes a god. He doesn’t like the way God has managed things down here. Oh, did you hear that Oprah Winfrey is going to be a god when she dies? Yeap, that’s her plan. Then, there are those who are not so sure that there is life after death and are not willing to give up being god in their own existence here.

But, the REAL God has His way and to follow it, we need to put aside pride. Humility, humility, humility.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14319040:

So in your view all the Catholics who found the evidence in DNA are delusional materialists?

When did I say that? I said there is no evidence for species to species evolution. If you believe in that you are definitely stretching the evidence to the Nth degree.

You said “Mr. Materialist (I assume you do believe in Evolution)” so implying everyone who accepts evolution is a materialist. And you said “Evolutionists believe that there is a link from Species to Species, though there is no evidence of it”, implying they are delusional.

(btw there’s lots of evidence as we share 99% genes with chimps and bonobos, and 98% with gorillas. And that’s my last word on evolution, nope, not one word more ).

In my opinion De Sade was bad to the bone. I wouldn’t try to explain him through his “troubled childhood”. He had gone willingly over to the dark side and was trying to convince people to follow him.

I know little about him, just read three short bio’s and was struck by the mercilessness of his upbringing. He spent much of his life committed to a mental hospital, and I’m not a psychiatrist and can’t judge the mentally ill.

 

[tonyrey]

My preference has nothing to do with reality. It is always positive to face reality. The universe does not care about us, and no one asserts that it does… God supposedly cares about us, but there is NO indication that he does. Of course, if I would be wrong, and if God would all of a sudden display his “love” for us in some appreciable manner, I would be HAPPY to change my mind. That is the difference between us. You are surrounded with the evidence of a non-caring God, and you keep on clinging to your belief - despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Your view of life seems dominated by negativity! Would you prefer not to have existed at all?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Maybe you can bring some walls down and let Him in. But, you want Him to be obedient to you. How does that make sense? What God is that who you are seeking? You want it to be done your way, not His.

WHAT walls? I am not aware of any “walls”. You know, the choice of your words is perplexing to me. What is this “obedience” thing you talk about? I ASKED God to help me, and nothing happened. I am open to his ways, but nothing happens.

 

[tonyrey]

WHAT walls? I am not aware of any “walls”. You know, the choice of your words is perplexing to me. What is this “obedience” thing you talk about? I ASKED God to help me, and nothing happened. I am open to his ways, but nothing happens.

What do you expect to happen?

 

[RCinMT]

I will say this as a positive about atheism: as a worldview it’s easier to hold and adapt to than theism. Several atheists ascribe to every new scientific theory that is floated–they hammer believers with the theory and when theories are disproved or abandoned then they seamlessly move onto a new one. While the Bible provides some pliability because it’s not a scientific treatise and Judaism/Christianity can withstand scientific criticism, we can’t throw out our “playbook” on every whim that occurs to us or our intellectuals.

In our age Judaism and Christianity are perpetually the defense with their proverbial backs to the goal line with one inch to spare while the offense (the atheists) have one inch to score, endless amounts of downs and the willingness to adopt a new offensive strategy every play.

 

[Bradski]

Several atheists ascribe to every new scientific theory that is floated…

Severall. eh? That many…

 

[RCinMT]

Severall. eh? That many…

Severall? Yes, I would say several is an apt description. All of the atheists whom I know seem to be quite enthusiastic about every scientific theory espoused and equally comfortable with adopting a completely contradictory view to said theory when/if it’s disproved.

Unfortunately those of us who have a theistic bent don’t have the luxury of printing an entirely reconstructed/reworked Bible every time some teaching falls out of favor.

 

[Bradski]

Severall? Yes, I would say several is an apt description. All of the atheists whom I know seem to be quite enthusiastic about every scientific theory espoused and equally comfortable with adopting a completely contradictory view to said theory when/if it’s disproved.

An eminently sensible approach to science.

Now if you said that you knew people that maintained their support for a particular position despite it being disproved, then I would feel the need to explain to them how scientific theories are meant to work.

 

[Aloysium]

Recently in Tanzania another set of footprints was discovered that are believed to have been made by a creature called Australopithecus. The famous hypothetical Lucy, possible mother of hominids is considered to have been a member of this species. There are a number of print sizes, that seems clear enough. From here on, it’s a matter of best guesstimates. There is one set of footprints larger than the others. It is assumed that they belonged to the male and that he probably stood about 5 feet tall. There are prints which are thought to be females and others, children based on their relative size. Assuming this remnant of what was, this snapshot of a moment in time, is a typical representation of how they existed in relation to one another, we can imagine how their social order might be configured. This supposed family, based on observations of animal behaviour today, is gorilla-like in its structure.

Your general skeptic, sees how this picture is constructed using some reasonable but pretty big assumptions. What is abundantly clear is that there is nothing in the evidence that speaks one way or the other as to the humanity of those creatures who walked that muddy trek. For believers in the evolutionary emergence of mankind, such stories are pretty much irrefutable evidence validating their core belief in random change and natural selection. I’m not intending this to be a discussion of evolution but more about how we think and relate to our world. Ultimately, we see what we believe is out there.

And, people are not so sensible when it comes to threats to their connection with reality.

The positive aspect of atheism arises not from its claim that there is no God. Of course, for those atheists who are in it for the argument rather than to establish for themselves what is truth, it would be the claim that there is no proof of a god. Any positive aspect does not belong to that philosophy but the science to which it appeals. Science implies an open mind. It provides a challenge to superstition and the misapplication of religious truth. Atheism may be a stepping stone for some people on their way to true faith. But, as the saying goes, it throws out the baby with the bath water. Beginning and ending with the belief that there is no God, true atheists will never, ever accept any evidence that might suggest otherwise and will accept even irrelevant information to validate their belief. I would say therefore that there is no positive aspect to atheism. It is a path into deepening darkness.

 

[RCinMT]

An eminently sensible approach to science.

Now if you said that you knew people that maintained their support for a particular position despite it being disproved, then I would feel the need to explain to them how scientific theories are meant to work.

Indeed, Brad, indeed. With that said, does such an approach to scientific enthusiasm not necessarily mean that cleaving to theories and using them as hammer to shame/insult theistic people is disingenuous at best, foolish in reality?

I don’t have a problem with atheists refusing to admit belief without proof–faith is a gift. However, I take great issue with the parrots who hammer theism “because…science”…when science is every changing and the current theories of atheist physicists cannot be tested in order to be proven and in some cases–such as multiverse–may be the cobbling together of several contradictory theories.

So the question is not whether new theories are worthy of discussion or reflection, it’s whether it’s wise, fair or intelligent to try to bludgeon people with those theories. Does not the very nature of the term “theory” both imply the possibility of other explanations and invite skepticism?

 

[Bradski]

Indeed, Brad, indeed. With that said, does such an approach to scientific enthusiasm not necessarily mean that cleaving to theories and using them as hammer to shame/insult theistic people is disingenuous at best, foolish in reality?

I don’t have a problem with atheists refusing to admit belief without proof–faith is a gift. However, I take great issue with the parrots who hammer theism “because…science”…when science is every changing and the current theories of atheist physicists cannot be tested in order to be proven and in some cases–such as multiverse–may be the cobbling together of several contradictory theories.

So the question is not whether new theories are worthy of discussion or reflection, it’s whether it’s wise, fair or intelligent to try to bludgeon people with those theories. Does not the very nature of the term “theory” both imply the possibility of other explanations and invite skepticism?

I’m not aware of anyone in this forum who uses science in the way you described. Scientific facts, and sometimes theories, are generally used to point out the dichotomy between what we know and what someone might profess.

 

[RCinMT]

I’m not aware of anyone in this forum who uses science in the way you described. Scientific facts, and sometimes theories, are generally used to point out the dichotomy between what we know and what someone might profess.

I’m referring to the atheists I know and, indeed, several of the so-called “New Atheists”. That being said, I’m quite certain that you’ve seen this play out in several places. The fact that it doesn’t here is partially owing to the manner of administration, partially to the caliber of posters.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

. Atheism may be a stepping stone for some people on their way to true faith. But, as the saying goes, it throws out the baby with the bath water. Beginning and ending with the belief that there is no God, true atheists will never, ever accept any evidence that might suggest otherwise and will accept even irrelevant information to validate their belief. I would say therefore that there is no positive aspect to atheism. It is a path into deepening darkness.

That was my experience as an atheist.

But the road to salvation is always clear to those who will open their eyes and their hearts.

 

[Russell_SA]

Can you think of any positive aspects of atheism?
Let’s make a list.

Atheism, as I understand it’s use, is the lack of belief in the supernatural.
That’s it. You can’t go from there to a world view, political view, etc.

It’s like being in a crowd of people that all have their favorite TV channel and they are discussing the pro’s and con’s of their channel as how it’s (name removed by moderator)ut is affecting their decisions and outlook on life. New data in equals new look at life. The atheists are saying, we don’t even turn the TV on because we don’t believe there is even a TV there. So no new (name removed by moderator)ut to create a world view on the “non-channel”. You can create a world view by watching the TV show Friends, but how can you create a world view if you never turn on the TV at all?
Now if the atheist claims that they like to read books on Secular Humanism, or capitalism, or buddhism, etc., then they have a data (name removed by moderator)ut and can use that to create a world view, political view, etc. Just remember, atheism is not dogma of any kind.
“Hey Frank, I saw Janis yesterday.” - Bob
“Really!?, Well I don’t believe you did.” - Frank
“What! Well because you don’t believe I saw Janis yesterday, you must be x, y, z.” - Bob
“Yeah, that follows…” - exhasperated Frank

Atheists can point out what some benefits are for not watching your particular TV channel as well as benefits, but you can’t make a list of Atheist pro’s and con’s without first finding out about their particular world view.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheism, as I understand it’s use, is the lack of belief in the supernatural.
That’s it. You can’t go from there to a world view, political view, etc.

Actually, you can. While not all atheists are in lockstep on their philosophy of life (just as all Catholics or all Muslims are not in lockstep with each other) you can detect common predictable positions among Catholics, Muslims, and Atheists.

The common feature of atheistic philosophy is not just that there is no God, but also that materialism, determinism, moral relativism, and the finality of death (etc.) may be logically inferred. Atheism is the mental gravitation that pulls all this universe of isms together.