Atheism a good thing, Religious perspective

Hey, cut the self-righteous caring-about-others crap! It’s not an argument but an emotional appeal!

TheUndergroundMan

Start looking at god from other angles. Look at ‘him,’ e.g., as reason.

Stop looking at ‘him’ as though ‘he’ were some kindly grandfather figure in the sky.

You might begin to make progress.

I think I’ll take your advice epictetus_phrygianslave and ponder what you said for a while. very intresting.

Hi epictetus_phrygianslave,

Christianity which has no compassion but only accuses and threatens is fake! Christians that proclaim such nonsense are really only promoting their elitist racist views on how bad the world is and waiting for redemption - or worst still, they rabble on about an axis of evil and how they represent the “new Israel” that is to fight Armageddon against it’s godless enemies.

This is bad stuff and a long way off from a merciful and compassionate and jewish Jesus, who stood up for the oppressed and weak. I’d rather have a peaceloving atheist than a warmongering Christian anyday.

Shalom
Bob

Hey, Bob,

Why so defensive?

What did Christianity do to you to hurt your feelings so much?

Don’t atheists talk as much drivel as fanatical Christians?

Why do you mention the fact that Jesus ben Pantera was Jewish, what difference does that make?

All churches and organised religions are fake and hocus-pocus – a good deal of philosophy too!

Apart from the many things being said, let me just reiterate one point.

Let’s just take as a premise, suspending all emotional baggages and judgemental attitudes, that “All men are evil”.

Now let us then ask ourselves what kind of philosophy follows from that, logically?

Would such a philosophy make sense? in that it explains things, helps clarifies what you see all around you, and even lead to new insights?

To TheUndergroundMan

Does not the Torah (in the Prophets) say, “The righteous will live by his faith” [Hab 2:4]?

What does this mean? What is faith?

And regarding Abraham and Job was it their righteousness that saved them? Did not Abraham lie about Sarah his wife, not once but twice? Or was it their faith? And is Abraham or Job still alive today? (How do the Torah view death? Why death? and is there eternal life?)

And would you not say David, who committed adultery with Bethseba, a righteous man too? even deceitful and scheming Jacob?

But did not God, again in the Prohpets, say “Jacob I love, Esau I hate.” Was it because Jacob was sinless and righteous? Far from it I would say!

And what is this faith? Namely that they believe that God, being God, is able and will save them, just as Abraham believe God will “save” Issac even though it was God who asked Abraham to sacrifice Issac in the first place. Abraham obeyed, acted because he had faith.

Now regarding babies dying, I am not talking about abortion. I am talking about “innocent” babies naturally still born. And also what about congenital disabilities, like Down’s syndrome and others. And sometimes these can be a worst “curse” than death itself.

And regarding who is God - old man in the sky or an idea - this is what Jesus said, in his prayer at the garden of Gethsamne, before his arrest, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” [John 17:3]

Now finally why do you want to be sinless in life? That this is what it means to be a Jew? to be conformed to the dictates of Judaism, for its very own sake (but what about the daily sacrifices?)? or that you fear God, and if so, why? because you fear death? Or that you love God?

There is indeed a war out there, but an unseen, unknown, unhuman, and unearthly war:

Chanbengchin wrote:

Perhaps i was too sensitive. Perhaps English is not your first language. The fact remains that evil is a very strong word for use only in limited situations. Tolerance is a long ways from love, but we have to start somewhere. Anyway, like you say, to call an argument evil is meaningless.

Chanbengchin continues:

I just said that Atheists tend to be more tolerant and that the label ‘evil’ can generally be construed as intolerant. Anyway, it is not important, the point is a mere trifle, and i forgive you.

Reality? Or a singular truth posited as reality? I would call any truth, that posited itself as the only truth, no truth at all.

TheUndergroundMan rightly observed:

I agree the concept of ‘original sin’ has done a lot of harm.

epictetus_phrygianslave said:

I am tentatively prepared to agree with you. What precisely do you mean by external?

epictetus_phrygianslave continues in another post:

Yes. We do have the freedom to do both. You say, “The same act of killing can be good or bad – yes, correct, according to the subjective morality of the observer. It’ll be bad for the family of the victim. And it’ll be good for enemies of the victim. But this is all in the realm of relative morality…” (i chose this as being most representative of my limited understanding of what you are trying to say, feel free to correct me) It is not good or good or bad based solely on the subject’s viewpoint. One must also consider the circumstances, other’s viewpoints, etc. To my mind, the larger one’s moral view the better.

Bob says:

I am sure that there are some intolerant Atheists. One finds bad apples in every bunch. To my mind Atheists tend to be more tolerant, however. I never really thought of Atheism as neutral ground, but you’re right, it is. It is almost as if we are to a certain extent segregated from the warring factions of religion.

Bob says:

I admire Jesus. He seemed a loving, caring man not afraid to associate with the poor, nor afraid to tangle with the elite, rich priesthood. “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” Where are the Boddhisatvas of today? I suppose i’m a bit of a mystic myself.

Shalom,
Marshall

As to why Atheism might be good from a religious perspective…

I am an Atheist. I don’t generally advertise the fact and i don’t attempt to convert people. Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of belief in any supernatural deities like Gods , devils, angels, demons, etc. Atheists are neither moral nor immoral by virtue of their Atheism. Some people ask me, “How can you be moral, if you don’t believe in God?” and i always have to stifle an inner chuckle at that one. The two are not incompatible. I can not speak for Atheists, because the only thing that Atheists share in common is that absence of belief. But i can tell you what it means to me. I know that if the World is to be a better place, i must make that happen. All of the prayers, sacrifices, and supplication in the World will not put one grain of bread in a starving Ethiopian child’s mouth. As an atheist i accept responsibility for my own World. I rely on my reason. I will not cauterize the genitalia of young girls, or commit other acts of cruelty based on longstanding enforced moral codes that have never been questioned. I do not believe in heaven. When one must be rewarded for one’s virtue, heaven is already unattainable. I do not wish to live forever. Death gives a sweet poignancy to life, and i give thanks for the grim reaper every day. I love my fellow man, not because someone says i must or because God commands it, but because i can and because i have personally come to the conclusion that it is the right thing to do.

Chanbengchin

You quote Paul to the Ephesians.

Do you actually have any realistic idea of what this “Lord” and “God” is?
It is the ruling reason, the logos, the governing principle, the word. This is what Paul is speaking of. In Jesus this “Lord” and “God” exists in the world. Jesus is the perfect wise man.

When you put on “the full armor of God” all it means is that you adopt the philosophy of right reasoning. The “devil’s schemes” stands for nothing more than all schemes that belong not to the right reason.

Who are these “rulers” and “authorities” and “powers of this dark world” and “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realm?” Well they are not the “flesh and blood” they are simply the desires and aversions!

The ”day of evil” is nothing more than testing times.

Does this help you at all?

What is faith?

Faith is the virtue in which you follow Truth wheresoe’er it leadeth.

Belief in God

Is belief in that alone which can save, namely, the acropolis of all that is most perfectly balanced and harmonious, the very citadel of the soul, the way, the truth, the light, the seat of the ruling reason, the divine spark, the eternal word, the imperishable prohairesis, the governing faculty, the animating principle, sound judgement…some call it Jesus, or Master, or Lord, it is all the same thing!

It’s just that different people have differing understandings.
It’s also a balancing of the books. A highly educated intellectual atheist who has a high opinion of himself will pay a certain price and obtain a certain understanding.
A Down’s syndrome child will pay a different price and obtain another understanding.
Very often, ironically, the difference in price will appear in the fact that the latter will be a lot happier than the former!
And happiness is what it’s all about in the end!

Do you?

[i]As to why Atheism might be good from a religious perspective…

I am an Atheist. I don’t generally advertise the fact and i don’t attempt to convert people. Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of belief in any supernatural deities like Gods , devils, angels, demons, etc. Atheists are neither moral nor immoral by virtue of their Atheism. Some people ask me, “How can you be moral, if you don’t believe in God?” and i always have to stifle an inner chuckle at that one. The two are not incompatible. I can not speak for Atheists, because the only thing that Atheists share in common is that absence of belief. But i can tell you what it means to me. I know that if the World is to be a better place, i must make that happen. All of the prayers, sacrifices, and supplication in the World will not put one grain of bread in a starving Ethiopian child’s mouth. As an atheist i accept responsibility for my own World. I rely on my reason. I will not cauterize the genitalia of young girls, or commit other acts of cruelty based on longstanding enforced moral codes that have never been questioned. I do not believe in heaven. When one must be rewarded for one’s virtue, heaven is already unattainable. I do not wish to live forever. Death gives a sweet poignancy to life, and i give thanks for the grim reaper every day. I love my fellow man, not because someone says i must or because God commands it, but because i can and because i have personally come to the conclusion that it is the right thing to do.[/i]

What a noble speech honourable Marshall!

You cannot “make” the world “a better place.” That is so arrogant! Only a god can do such a thing. Or are you telling me that you are a god and possess the power to change the world?
You’re unable even to change your own mind let alone the world! And yet your mind is the only possession you have that can be truly said to belong to you and that you have some power over!

And what do you mean, “a better place?” What’s wrong with it now? So you can do a better job than the creator of existence? You’re still believing in this creed of external good and evil. On the one hand you don’t believe in god, on the other you do believe there’s good and bad in the world! That is some inconsistency!

You speak of “acts of cruelty.” And in so speaking you reinforce the illusory evil you seek to destroy! That is why all men who believe in external good and evil are then required to daily run the gauntlet of that very good and evil they tell us exists. Can you not see that you are responsible for creating a world in which good and evil exist? No one else, you and you alone! That’s the price one has to pay for clinging on to delusions!

Having read many of your contributions, you come across as a very nice person indeed, Marshall. So the last thing I want is to be rude to you in any way. But I have to tell it how it is, you’d have little respect for me if I was a brown-nose, and I’d have even less respect for myself. So, this is all professional, don’t take anything I say personally.

Practically there is no difference whether you sin because you are a sinner or you are sinner and therefore you sin. For if you have committed, by commission of omission of action, but one sin, you are a sinner, and thereafter it is moot. And who can say he is without sin?

So all are sinners, irrespective whether there is original sin or not.

However philosophically there is a very important distinction. It is like saying parallel lines dont meet or parallel lines meet. You then either get Euclidean or non Euclidean geometry.

And none of you have really addressed the issue WHY are there babies dying, naturally, even before birth.

And why has the notion of the original sin done harm? Is it not good to know the truth? For has it been proven/argued reasonably that there is NO original sin. That it is not pleasing to the ear or painful to our fragile egos is no substitute for an argument, nor does it falsify the offensive idea.

Now arent you all philosophers who idealised the self-actualised state of man, one who is detached from himself, able to reflect critically and reflexively, assured and confident of what and who he is, no matter what he sees, for his goal is not his ego, but to seek the beauty of truth, for which all else pales in comparision?

So why then do you react so emotionally and personally to the idea that all men are evil, that you find it repulsive, abhorent and offensive? Are you not afraid of missing the truth? and reducing all your efforts to futility?

Unless you are positing such a truth yourself, you must accept it is possible “the only truth” is true.

Chanbengchin

Didn’t I just explain things to you a couple of posts back?

Are you awake or what?

Do you read the responses to your own posts at all?

I suggest you go to a bookstore and buy yourself some good old-fashioned books on Biblical exegesis.

I was not asking questions. I was merely rethorical.

Marshall, you asked,

I am tentatively prepared to agree with you. What precisely do you mean by external?

By external I mean the objective world beyond that, at it were, me-centred intelligence thing. Like, when I get drunk, (which I don’t anymore,) it is the internal me-thing that gets affected. The external world, however, is completely indifferent to my drunkenness.

I have some control over parts of the internal and little or no control over the external world.

Where does this external world begin and end? I used to think the border between the two was my the fence around my property, then my body and its space, then my skin, and so on, until I finally realised that the only thing belonging to me was my power to form correct judgements - call it moral purpose.

Nothing else whatsoever belongs to me, for everything outside the domain of the moral choice can be hindered or thwarted. But in the realm of the moral purpose I suddenly become invincible, and no power on earth or in heaven can defeat me unless I choose to allow it to.

It is but a short step from this realisation to complete enlightenment.

As for good and evil: there is no external good or evil. All externality is a kind of illusion, a trick, a sleight of hand. This does not mean that you can go around killing people and with impunity because it’s only an illusion and they’re not really dead. Far from it! The people who do that sort of thing are the same as the ones who believe in the illusion. Both are blinded, one by sorrow, the other by hatred. No, this sort of illusion I am speaking of is the one where I witness events and then make rash judgements about the guilt, the right and wrong, the good and evil, the merits and demerits, and so on of the matter, and of a matter that is really none of my own business. After all. isn’t my own evil enough for me? Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof! Thus, know thyself!

Suffice to say that if you find you are disturbed by some external thing it is not the thing itself that disturbs you but it is your opinion of the thing. What are you going to do, weep and rail, and curse god and the whole human race because you lost your loved ones in a suicide bombing attack? But what on earth made you ever believe that your loved ones were something that actually belonged to you and would live forever or die the way you decided?

Now, as I said, I do have control over my opinions, but little or no control over externals. So, if I’m really bothered about something, I’ll act to change it, if I think it’ll make a definite improvement to the lot of humankind. But I wont just complain about it or exchange theories or argue for the sake of argument. No, I’ll get off my ass and do something. And as I do I’ll remind myself that I may not succeed in my aim, things may not go according to plan, they may fall apart disastrously, and the suchlike. So, whatever happens I wont despair and curse and raise my fists to heaven. For that would not be philosophical. And, when the suicide bomber pulls the pin and I see the explosion just a micro-second before I am blasted into oblivion I will praise god and tell him all is well for wherever I am it will be well with me.

And finally, I love everyone, Geo. W. Bush as much as Saddam Hussein, the Israelies as much as the Palestinians, etc., you are all my brothers and sisters, we’re all in this together, so let’s carnival!

epictetus_phrygianslave stated:

I am part of the World. I can at least make that a ‘better place’. For thousands of years, man has accepted the lowly place relegated to him by religion. At one time priests were more powerful than Kings. There are those who are glad to see all of the little pious religious people give up their rightful place in life. Many have seen this. Marx remarked that religion is the opiate of the masses. Many have done just as their wise venerable elders, somehow (we ask not how) in touch with the creator, ruler, and future judge of the World have told them. They have Taken time away from their life’s work, kneeled and prayed to the ‘master of the universe’. And in some cases have done little else. “Put the shoulder to the cart thyself, sluggard…” As aesop would have Zeus say in one of his fables. I submit, noble Phrygian slave, that these are the people left powerless to change the World.

epictetus_phrygianslave continues:

There is no inconsistency. unveil your argument.

and,

You have always treated me amiably. I still have not seen your argument for the lack of good and evil in the World. I would find that interesting.

epictetus_phrygianslave concludes with:

How does this view differ from those of solipsism and idealism? I mean i agree with your statement, “Suffice to say that if you find you are disturbed by some external thing it is not the thing itself that disturbs you but it is your opinion of the thing.” I believe this to be one of the great lessons bestowed by the stoics, (Seneca being a favorite of mine). But you also say,

and this to my mind seems to contradict your earlier admonition to me in which you say,