C
- Status
).
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I think it would behoove all of us to remember that atheism and Catholicism (and other isms) refer to groups; and groups are composed of individuals.
To make the leap that because (an) individual belonging to (a) group acted in a wrong way means that the ‘group’ is therefore wrong or evil would not be correct, would it?
Therefore, a person may quite correctly argue that the ‘system’ of atheism, that the religion --or belief system if you prefer–is not only wrong theologically but actually leads to great evil–while still acknowledging that individuals who happen to be atheists may act in perfectly good ways at a given time.
Likewise a contradiction can exist in that, by nature and definition, atheism contradict one of the most basic ‘concepts’ and indeed ‘the’ quintessential truth of the universe–the existence of God. Thus, even the kindest, mildest, most helpful atheist in the world, even acting from ‘good intentions’, is still ‘falling short’ in that he refuses (and it is a choice) to enter a relationship with His creator. He may still be saved. But can he be righteous? He can only be righteous on ‘human’ terms, because that is all he acknowledges. But ‘human’ terms are imperfect and fallible, as are human beings. “We see now in a glass darkly, but then face to face”. To take purely and solely ‘human’ ideas of righteousness as ‘the absolute righteousness’ is wrong.
Taking “God” out of individual and indeed universal existence is always going to lead to evil. The absence of God is not just an ‘absence’ of good but an actual presence of evil, even if it is unforeseen by the people who propose this ‘absence’ as enabling them to be able to be ‘fully human’.
To make the leap that because (an) individual belonging to (a) group acted in a wrong way means that the ‘group’ is therefore wrong or evil would not be correct, would it?
Therefore, a person may quite correctly argue that the ‘system’ of atheism, that the religion --or belief system if you prefer–is not only wrong theologically but actually leads to great evil–while still acknowledging that individuals who happen to be atheists may act in perfectly good ways at a given time.
Likewise a contradiction can exist in that, by nature and definition, atheism contradict one of the most basic ‘concepts’ and indeed ‘the’ quintessential truth of the universe–the existence of God. Thus, even the kindest, mildest, most helpful atheist in the world, even acting from ‘good intentions’, is still ‘falling short’ in that he refuses (and it is a choice) to enter a relationship with His creator. He may still be saved. But can he be righteous? He can only be righteous on ‘human’ terms, because that is all he acknowledges. But ‘human’ terms are imperfect and fallible, as are human beings. “We see now in a glass darkly, but then face to face”. To take purely and solely ‘human’ ideas of righteousness as ‘the absolute righteousness’ is wrong.
Taking “God” out of individual and indeed universal existence is always going to lead to evil. The absence of God is not just an ‘absence’ of good but an actual presence of evil, even if it is unforeseen by the people who propose this ‘absence’ as enabling them to be able to be ‘fully human’.
R
rpp
Guest
I have great difficulty believing this, unless it happened in England or some similar place with a long history of persecution of Catholics.
Even then it is alway fun for people to point out the little failings of an individual Christian while the atheists poison the minds of children and murder Christians everyday around the world.
D
dorothy_smith
Guest
Perhaps Atheism is the wrong word. Maybe I should say the righteous un-believer. I know many people here in England who have been brought up without religion. The ones that I know wouldn’t even use the word atheist. They simply don’t want anything to do with religion. They are nice, honest, hard working and decent. When I have mentioned God to them they just say very warmly and pleasantly that they don’t know anything about that kind of stuff and add that they are not interested. They most definitely cannot be mentioned within the same breath as your quote above.
R
rpp
Guest
Okay, I can go along with “righteous unbeliever”. However, to be "righteous, they must also be open to learning about the Lord. That is a critical part of “righteousness”.
R
rpp
Guest
Really? I must have missed that in the post. Is there a link to a news story?
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, I know what you mean. British people really don’t have a clue about Christianity any more on the whole–though I have to say that many of the British unbelievers I’ve encountered were very aggressive and belligerent.
I often puzzle over how Britain became so anti-religious. It’s not because of the religious conflicts of the past, at least not directly, because it seems to be most a postWWII phenomenon. Or am I wrong there? I know there was an element of skepticism about organized, dogmatic religion going back centuries, but the postwar version seems far more radical and complete.
BTW, I was born in England although I moved to the U.S. as a small child.
Apropos of your place of residence, have you read G. K. Chesterton’s novel The Napoleon of Notting Hill? It’s a weird and wonderful book.
Edwin
R
rpp
Guest
Doh! :doh2:
Whell, that would be me. Gosh, it is right there in the message header too. :blushing:
D
dorothy_smith
Guest
Yes yes yes
I love it and everything written by GK. I often go gawping outside the house where he was brought up in Kensington and imagine him still living there.
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
Amen!
Oh, and Happy Easter and welcome back to the forum! I hope God blessed you richly during Lent, and may He continue to do so during the Easter Season.
D
dorothy_smith
Guest
A celebrity who used live near me called Sir Jonathan Miller I think ought to be given the title of the righteous atheist. He is one of the most pleasant people you could meet and does a tremendous amount of work for charity. He wrote and presented a very interesting TV series on atheism.
He has always puzzled me though. He tells how he has had a wonderful life, his loving family and friends, his success in his career, enjoying fabulous wealth throughout his career, and most of all, his good health. When being told that he has led a life blessed he replies by saying that he has led a fortunate life.
I don’t understand him. I get a sickly feeling in my stomach that God has given this man, this really nice man, this righteous atheist, this incredibly intelligent man, all that life has to offer: happiness, wealth, health, a loving family, every success. But Jonathan insists on his belief that when you die that is it, you’re dead just like any other animal; there isn’t any after life.
How can such an intellect as him not believe in a higher power baffles and depresses me?
He has always puzzled me though. He tells how he has had a wonderful life, his loving family and friends, his success in his career, enjoying fabulous wealth throughout his career, and most of all, his good health. When being told that he has led a life blessed he replies by saying that he has led a fortunate life.
I don’t understand him. I get a sickly feeling in my stomach that God has given this man, this really nice man, this righteous atheist, this incredibly intelligent man, all that life has to offer: happiness, wealth, health, a loving family, every success. But Jonathan insists on his belief that when you die that is it, you’re dead just like any other animal; there isn’t any after life.
How can such an intellect as him not believe in a higher power baffles and depresses me?
C
Contarini
Guest
Jonathan Miller who directed many of the BBC Shakespeare productions? I love his work. The version of Othello with Anthony Hopkins and Bob Hoskins was one of the most shattering experiences I’ve ever had watching a movie (this was in part because I was a sheltered homeschooler who at that time had seen very few movies and knew Shakespeare almost entirely from the written page). However, I can see how his atheism affects his work–he gives Iago the last laugh (literally), which would have been anathema to Shakespeare.
Edwin
R
rpp
Guest
There is no such thing as a “righteous Atheist”. That is like saying “Righteous Nazi” Please cease using such an infamatory description.
K
Kevin42
Guest
I think when many people are using “righteous” in this thread, they mean someone who is sincere in their beliefs, is good-willed, and is doing the best they can where they are at to do what is good and just. That’s certainly what I took righteous atheist to mean, and although I cannot speak for others, that’s along the line of what I’m assuming they mean too.
I
IanBoyd57
Guest
Then you’re defining righteousness as believing and following your particular God.
That’s begging the question and assuming the conclusion in your premise.
And for chrissake, if you were more educated I would be terribly offended by comparing atheists to nazis. However, I believe in keeping things in context and not having unreasonable expectations of people, so I will not ridicule the gross world war 1/2 propaganda-esque demonization of people who are different from you.
If you actually do define righteousness solely by obeying god, then 9/11 was absolutely completely justified and you postively have no way to claim otherwise. Suicide bombers are righteous by your standards.
Erm, in your case, I probably need to take into account the prevailing ethnocentrism and lack of understanding for Islamic upbringings.
So I will digress to say that if you believe righteousness to be supernatural in origin, that is to say, above and beyond humans completely, then Islam can say the same. Until you acknowledge that there are real objective human nature based moral standards that we can determine through observation, you have no basis for condemning 9/11 in terms of muslims. There is nothing you can say to them to convince them that what they are doing is wrong.
After all, following god is the penultimate righteousness in your eyes; what are suicide bombers doing but following what they think god says in the same way the crusaders, inquisitionists, and salem witch executioners did?
I think you hold very bigoted and possibly dangerous views on atheism. If this post did not clarify why such incorrect prejudices are to be avoided, I would be happy to discuss it further, by email or an aol if needed. Feel free to contact me because no amount of my time is too much to devote to ending intolerance and bigotry.
My aim is IanBoyd57, and my email is ian.boyd@comcast.net.
- Status