Atheism

[Jane_the_Bane]

Talking about salvation in *this* life: let's use a parable.

Two brothers inherit a stretch of land, and have been brought up to make the best of it.
But while one brother sees how sustainable care is beneficial for everyone involved, the other decides that stip-mining and clear-cutting will give him more profits.
At the end of their lives, the two brothers meet at the boundary separating their land. The first brother is dressed rather humbly, having accumulated little wealth but living in prosperity nonetheless. His stretch of land is flourishing.
The second brother is decked in rich clothing, gold, and diamonds, yet walks amid a barren and poisoned wasteland.
Seeing his humble sibling, he laughs out loud: "Just look at you, brother! You obviously heeded our wordless father's advice, and see where it got you, dressed like a beggar. He told us that we'd have a heavy price to pay if we did not learn our lesson, and yet look at us! What have I lost, eh? What have I lost? YOU are the loser here, obviously."

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am not saying that humans aren't meant to respond to love, I am saying that other creatures seem equally dependent on love as humans. I just don't think love is a tangible point of difference between humans and all other species.

Good point - especially when considering what love looks likes in other species and differing types of love.

 

[light upon light]

That shows how love is a good thing. It doesn't show how failing to learn love is a bad thing.

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing."

Saying that someone who doesn't love is nothing is a pretty good indication that is not the place we want to be!

Can you describe why you believe that failing to learn love will become a punishment in the next life? (I am not arguing against it btw, I just want to know if there is any demonstrable truth to it for future reference).

Well, it's clearly a type of punishment in this life to exist without a loving heart.

Since the purpose of life in this world is theosis (to become more loving, wise, compassionate), those who fail to do so will be lacking something very important once the body withers and dies and they live fully in the spiritual realm.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Good point - especially when considering what love looks likes in other species and differing types of love.

The whole point being that an animal, say a dog, doesn't use multiple meanings for the word love (meaning think up definitions) but its something they express, both instinctively and intuitively as stated prior.
They don't express themselves any differently to the homosexual, the Muslim, the christian, the pedophile, and they 'give to all' (emotional responses, love) with equal measure. As humans we don't because we may 'think' that a Jew is x, y, or z and worthy of going to a gas chamber, whether an innocent, a women or a child. Some people 'think' that love between two males is evil. It's an absence of love (showing that they care) that makes the jew lesser, and so to the gay male, (as bolded below) and so to the people who only see a word and 'think' how awful and react accordingly. The story of the Good Samaritan would be an understanding of 'thinking' someone is less worthy given their shoddy state etc, and 'thinking' nothing more of them. My point being that as creative individuals we need to create MORE with love because we CAN create more, which is using our complex cognition (thoughts) to create, and that complexity can mask the expression of love (to show you care) which is the very fabric to our existence. When you forgive you show you care, when you show compassion you show you care, when you serve others you show you care, when you show mercy you show you care, so we use those attributes as we create, they are expressions of love, and they are hard to express because 'we think' something else.

 

[oi_antz]

Ok from post 333 what was true, what didn't make sense, and what didn't you understand,

To be honest, I did not look into your claim about the high end beta wave frequency being the capacity for thinking acting and doing. I assumed your research was accurate, so I decided to consider it. I have not yet had time to research it, it has been quite a rough few days. So it didn't make sense to me because I did not understand it, but instinctively it seemed to have some truth to it, especially since humans do appear to have an advanced capacity to think, act and do. However, this point seemed to not be relevant to a creature's dependency on love, because love is not represented by someone's ability to think, act and do. It is more about someone's desire to have what they like. This is what I said in #333.

following on from post 331 talking about love in relation to 'showing you cared', which was in relation to your post about animals and humans needing love equally and that there was no tangible difference. Were you referencing sexual relations in that post when referring to love and the tangible differences?

Nothing to do with sex. I think sex is not necessarily related to love, but love can impact sex and sex can impact love. However, it is primarily a reproductive and sensual activity, which can exist without love. As also love can exist without sex.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

To be honest, I did not look into your claim about the high end beta wave frequency being the capacity for thinking acting and doing. I assumed your research was accurate, so I decided to consider it. I have not yet had time to research it, it has been quite a rough few days. So it didn't make sense to me because I did not understand it, but instinctively it seemed to have some truth to it, especially since humans do appear to have an advanced capacity to think, act and do. However, this point seemed to not be relevant to a creature's dependency on love, because love is not represented by someone's ability to think, act and do. It is more about someone's desire to have what they like. This is what I said in #333.

Nothing to do with sex. I think sex is not necessarily related to love, but love can impact sex and sex can impact love. However, it is primarily a reproductive and sensual activity, which can exist without love. As also love can exist without sex.

Of course we all have our views, all valid, and I'm known to my labour my own a tad to much at times. Hope you are on the up.

 

[Ave Maria]

One should always be charitable in their conversations with others regardless of what belief system or faith they subscribe to. However, that does not mean that criticizing a religion or belief system is wrong. Religion and belief systems can definitely be justly criticized and indeed it should. Of course one should always be charitable in their criticisms. That doesn't mean one has to be all positive and happy either. However, Christians are obligated to interact with other people in a charitable manner.

That said, this is a little off topic but here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Atheism which I fully believe with all of my heart:

Atheism

2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."58

2124 The name "atheism" covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."59 Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man's hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."60

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62

2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.63 Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God. . . . "64 "For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."65

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1

2140 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the first commandment.

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2140

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by oi_antz

Oh? So what causes someone to not care for another?
​

Lack of heart connection.

.

Have a heart......

Ezekiel 36:26
And I have given to you a new heart, and a new spirit I give in your midst
And I have turned aside the heart of stone out of your flesh,
And I have given to you a heart of flesh.
[Jeremiah 31:33/Hebrews 8:10]

Jeremiah 17:10
I YAHWEH, searching heart, examining the affections and giving to man ways of him, as fruit of his doings.
[Reve 2:23]

Reve 2:23
And the offspring of her I shall be killing in death, and shall be knowing all the Out-Calleds that I am the One searching kidneys/reigns/nefrouV <3510> and hearts
and I shall be giving to Ye each according to the works of Ye.
[Jeremiah 17:10]

Tin Man If I Only Had a Heart - YouTube



.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

One should always be charitable in their conversations with others regardless of what belief system or faith they subscribe to. However, that does not mean that criticizing a religion or belief system is wrong. Religion and belief systems can definitely be justly criticized and indeed it should. Of course one should always be charitable in their criticisms. That doesn't mean one has to be all positive and happy either. However, Christians are obligated to interact with other people in a charitable manner.

That said, this is a little off topic but here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Atheism which I fully believe with all of my heart:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2140

Throughout history (and well into the 20th century), the Catholic Church was too heavily involved with the powers-that-be (absolute monarchs, dictators, military juntas) and (as spelled out in the first Vatican council) too staunchly opposed to such "errors of modernity" as democracy or emancipation.
This has undermined the Church's credibility to the point where I can no longer perceive it as a genuinely spiritual institution, but more as a huge business with huge investments in the status quo and a penchant for extraordinarily reactionary values.

(And that's not even touching upon theological issues such as the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, and bodily ascension of Mary; the identification of Mary of Magdala with the adulteress/prostitute; St. Augustine's concept of original sin and its effect on Catholic sexual morality throughout the ages; the infallibility of the Pope in doctrinal matters and many other doctrinal oddities.)

 

[elephunky]

Throughout history (and well into the 20th century), the Catholic Church was too heavily involved with the powers-that-be (absolute monarchs, dictators, military juntas) and (as spelled out in the first Vatican council) too staunchly opposed to such "errors of modernity" as democracy or emancipation.
This has undermined the Church's credibility to the point where I can no longer perceive it as a genuinely spiritual institution, but more as a huge business with huge investments in the status quo and a penchant for extraordinarily reactionary values.

(And that's not even touching upon theological issues such as the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, and bodily ascension of Mary; the identification of Mary of Magdala with the adulteress/prostitute; St. Augustine's concept of original sin and its effect on Catholic sexual morality throughout the ages; the infallibility of the Pope in doctrinal matters and many other doctrinal oddities.)

I remember hearing about people being executed for having ideas that conflicted with the catholic churches teachings and rules :/

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I remember hearing about people being executed for having ideas that conflicted with the catholic churches teachings and rules :/

Well, to be fair, that's mostly ancient history - and everybody else acted just the same at the time. Protestants tend to forget that they were no less unrelenting, no less fanatical, no less bloodthirsty in their doctrinal exclusiveness.

I'm far more bothered by the Curch's involvement with 20th century dictatorships: they openly and unabashedly supported Franco's ultra-nationailst junta in Spain, and blessed his power-grab as a holy crusade.
Likewise, Portugal's dictator Salazar was a deeply devout Catholic, and the church turned out to be fairly supportive of his regime throughout the 1930s and 40s, even praising the failure of an assassination attempt upon the dictator's life as an "act of God".
The same could be observed in various South American countries.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thanks, I listened to the youtube lecture by Holly Ordway and there was some interesting information.

There's also Jennifer Fulwiler

Jennifer Fulwiler: Scientific Atheism to Christ - YouTube

"How I grew up atheist and ended up Catholic" -Jennifer Fulwiler, THIRST 2013 - YouTube

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Honestly, I find testimonies by converts to be considerably more tiresome than inspirational - regardless of where they were coming from, or where they went.

There is such a thing as convert's zeal: the intense need to distance yourself from your previous beliefs and identity, the desire to vindicate your newfound convictions, the urge to prove to yourself and to everyone else that what you used to believe is false, and what you uphold now is 100% true.

The only other place in human existence where you can come across a similar process is with regard to romantic relationships: many people positively vilify their memories of previous partners (after all, they are no longer romatically involved with them, and what does that signify?), while simultaneously putting their new love on a pedestal. It's not the healthiest approach to relationships, and certainly not a recipe for stability, but I've seen enough people embrace this approach.

At the end of the day, I feel that the most vocal converts do not tend to stick to their newfound faith because of the superiority of its arguments, or the plain logic of its core principles. There are unconscious desires involved here, and the reasons they find are just retroactively applied justifications for the change - again, as in the case of romantic relationships.
Jeff did not cheat on Amy for mean reasons - he just realized that Amy was not the love of his life, that their relationship was going nowhere, and that Amy just had not faced up to the fact yet. Now Jill, by contrast, was CLEARLY the One, as manifested by their mutual love for baseball...

 

[BaconWizard]

No I was talking about a capacity to create. Desire is a capacity to create, desire with thinking is a greater capacity to create. Rather than ask more questions reflect on the answers.

It seems such a shame to put this out there, but it has to be done.

It would appear that creativity is linked most closely with the ability to deceive.

It comes from Theory of Mind: that someone else will have a differing view of the same event.

This is something that children do not learn until the age of 3 or 4.
Example: Let's put a sweet under this (left hand) one of these 3 cups, and Mummy can see it. Mummy goes out of the room. We move the cups (sweet is now in the middle)

Where will mummy look for the sweet?

Theory of mind allows you to think she will most likely look for the sweet in the left hand cup. Without it, one assumes she should look under the middle cup. Why? Because you know that's where the sweet is. And you cannot account for the fact that Mummy knows something different. SILLY Mummy looking under the left hand cup, when it's in the middle!

Chimpanzees can do this. And it permits the first act of creativity in a social context rather than tool-use: If I hide this banana but then go and RE-hide it because the Alpha male was watching me and thinks he knows where I hid it, I will have more bananas.

From there we can get narrative and also comparison. With the addition of language you soon reach story-telling, similes and analogies. The ability to lie, allows it all to develop.

That social maneuvering, tool-use and the development of language from onomatopoeia and instinctive calls like laughter, give us our creative framework. Not love.

Love is in my opinion a different and special thing that we are not alone as a species in feeling (I have no evidence for this assertion, it is simply my opinion) which our creativity is used to express in unique ways.

 

[BaconWizard]

To return to the OP somewhat, it needs explaining that atheism is not itself a belief (yes, I know we've covered that) but it CAN be for an individual who is themselves an atheist.

This comes down to the difference between gnosticism and theism, agnosticism and atheism.

While atheism is indeed a lack of belief, it doesn't proclude belief in the non-existence of a god. (non-deity supernatural things is covered by skepticism, not atheism, although often people are both as am I. In fact skepticism is one cause of my atheism, while it might not be so for someone else)

HOWEVER, an atheist who believes there is no god may not necessarily seek to assert that. He/she is simply free to believe anything whatsoever as is a theist. Because (in my opinion) we simply do not know. There is no evidence that can be properly tested, so it is all purely speculation.

Again, MY atheism is informed by scientific method and so MY atheism stems from the view that without evidence and an infinite or at least mind-numbingly huge number of possibilities to consider, the default position regarding any assertion someone makes, especially if it of incredible magnitude, should be that it is not so. Therefore I do not believe in a god of any kind while not claiming to know otherwise.

For someone else who isn't being informed by scientific method, that might not be the default position at all and they might choose to believe that there is in fact NO god. That is their right and is as supported as any theistic claim I guess....which is to say not much.

Gnosticism on the other hand, is the Gnowledge (knowledge in modern spelling) of something, and agnosticism lack thereof.

Hence some theists claim to be gnostic.. "I KNOW there is a God and I KNOW he wants us to x, y, z... "
One has to be gnostic in order to assert one's position at the head of a church, how else can you lord it over someone else if you both just have a hunch in common? You are claiming knowledge that someone else has less-of. It is this that many atheists find hard to take, especially if they are at all scientifically minded or use critical thinking, and would seek to test such knowledge to destruction: survival of such testing being confirmation of truth (as best as can be determined at the time)

Less usually, but I am sure they exist, some "gnostic atheists" could claim to KNOW that there ISN'T a god. A claim which I find equally untenable and intellectually dishonest as any theistic claim.

So I hope you can see that atheism is at least as nondescript term as "theist" and covers at least as many disparate creeds, few of which can even be defined as a movement, group, etc unlike many theists who tend to form congregations more often.

And for what it's worth, the New Atheist and so-called militant atheism you see mostly online and somewhat in The USA, is entirely reactionary.. it is what happens when you take any group of people and label them as all being x, y, z thing and marginalize them because of that thing you assert them to be.

"Blacks are so stupid, lazy and dirty"

That didn't end so well. And hasn't ended yet, in fact.

Atheists have almost nothing in common with each other as a "group".. EXCEPT if someone decides to make "atheists" a group, the "other" and to act against "them"

If you suddenly decided "blue eyed people are evil" you would find that blue-eyed folk who have absolutely nothing in common with each other right now except for blue eyes, suddenly find a reason to come together and have a Blue-is-True rally, or somesuch.

I am in the UK where the social norm is not to discuss religion especially. Nobody makes a big deal of their religion in The Pub for example, and you'd be viewed as a bit strange and perhaps in need of a chill-pill if you tried often. We are technically a protestant country, though effectively secular in governmental and legal dealings. An atheism rally here would flop entirely unless it was to show solidarity with the USA movements. Nobody would go: we are not discriminated against so there's no point. I'd rather just go for a pint of beer with my mates, most of whom may be atheists (or not, I don't know or care) like normal.

Anyway, I'm done. Peace

 

[gord44]

Honestly, I find testimonies by converts to be considerably more tiresome than inspirational - regardless of where they were coming from, or where they went.

There is such a thing as convert's zeal: the intense need to distance yourself from your previous beliefs and identity, the desire to vindicate your newfound convictions, the urge to prove to yourself and to everyone else that what you used to believe is false, and what you uphold now is 100% true.

Agreed. Testimonies do nothing for me. I almost find them counterproductive to what I am sure is their intended purpose.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Honestly, I find testimonies by converts to be considerably more tiresome than inspirational - regardless of where they were coming from, or where they went.

There is such a thing as convert's zeal: the intense need to distance yourself from your previous beliefs and identity, the desire to vindicate your newfound convictions, the urge to prove to yourself and to everyone else that what you used to believe is false, and what you uphold now is 100% true.

The only other place in human existence where you can come across a similar process is with regard to romantic relationships: many people positively vilify their memories of previous partners (after all, they are no longer romatically involved with them, and what does that signify?), while simultaneously putting their new love on a pedestal. It's not the healthiest approach to relationships, and certainly not a recipe for stability, but I've seen enough people embrace this approach.

At the end of the day, I feel that the most vocal converts do not tend to stick to their newfound faith because of the superiority of its arguments, or the plain logic of its core principles. There are unconscious desires involved here, and the reasons they find are just retroactively applied justifications for the change - again, as in the case of romantic relationships.
Jeff did not cheat on Amy for mean reasons - he just realized that Amy was not the love of his life, that their relationship was going nowhere, and that Amy just had not faced up to the fact yet. Now Jill, by contrast, was CLEARLY the One, as manifested by their mutual love for baseball...

Technically - and this is a point of irony, IMHO - everything that has ever taken place here in this planet when it comes to viewpoints is a matter of testimony. One side sharing their perspective on why they came to believe what they believe and how that differed from where they were before - be it on religious views or on views of politics and many other things. It is not always an emotional ordeal nor does it have to be one since for many it is and will always be simply about the facts being addressed as they understand it.

And of course, as there will be others outside of the position one holds to who disagree, they will share their perspective (be it one where they converted or not) - it is always a matter of perspective. Someone divorcing another because of an affair their partner had and then remarrying (if using the love example) is logically going to have strong feelings - and on the issue, having strong feelings/conviction DOES NOT make the choice automatically wrong or something to be dismissed.....just as others critiquing (be it those who felt the marriage should have continued or those supporting the decision to leave) are going to have feelings on it. Of course there are unconscious desires at work - and that's basic to humanity. But being vocal as a convert or supporting a change intensely doesn't take away from the logic of what is being supported - even the most vocal converts can tend to stick to their newfound faith because of the superiority of its arguments, or the plain logic of its core principles.

And if core principles are being dismissed because of others having strong feelings, that's dismissing/avoiding dealing with the issues - no different than someone saying that it's wrong for Bill to feel that Susan is a hard worker (counter to his ex-wife who was bad with money and didn't have good credit like Susan) because of how intensely he thinks the world of her. One may wish to focus on saying "Bill shouldn't feel the world revolves around Susan" - but that has nothing to do with showing whether or not Susan is a hard worker.....and if he's right on Susan being a hard worker, it matters little whether or not he is also zealous for praising her as well.

I have an Aunt and Uncle who divorced after 24 yrs of marriage. They came close to divorce on multiple occasions - my uncle, however, still has a picture in his house of him and my aunt as well as pictures of them and my cousins from their marriage. Of course he is dating and seeking remarriage as my aunt is - and of course, they had their reasons for divorcing (financial and strife more so) - but that doesn't logically mean they vilify every single thing they did when they were previously married. They appreciate new partners for who they are and obviously feel they are superior in certain ways - just as family members do, even if those family members don't really like the new partners more so than the new...but newfound convictions are natural. Some of them will be good/true and others won't be accurate - but it's a part of development. And many of them live happy lives till their deaths and are quite stable. That has happened for a long time.

Likewise - it is the same with convert testimony or stories of others sharing why they grew up as they did. And if the emotion/strong conviction is wrong, so is the act of speaking on this forum anytime something comes up one disagrees with.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The whole point being that an animal, say a dog, doesn't use multiple meanings for the word love (meaning think up definitions) but its something they express, both instinctively and intuitively as stated prior.
They don't express themselves any differently to the homosexual, the Muslim, the christian, the pedophile, and they 'give to all' (emotional responses, love) with equal measure. As humans we don't because we may 'think' that a Jew is x, y, or z and worthy of going to a gas chamber, whether an innocent, a women or a child. Some people 'think' that love between two males is evil. It's an absence of love (showing that they care) that makes the jew lesser, and so to the gay male, (as bolded below) and so to the people who only see a word and 'think' how awful and react accordingly. The story of the Good Samaritan would be an understanding of 'thinking' someone is less worthy given their shoddy state etc, and 'thinking' nothing more of them. My point being that as creative individuals we need to create MORE with love because we CAN create more, which is using our complex cognition (thoughts) to create, and that complexity can mask the expression of love (to show you care) which is the very fabric to our existence. When you forgive you show you care, when you show compassion you show you care, when you serve others you show you care, when you show mercy you show you care, so we use those attributes as we create, they are expressions of love, and they are hard to express because 'we think' something else.

Speaking of animals and love...

Can chimpanzees forgive us? Andrew Westoll at TEDxUTSC - YouTube

 

[BaconWizard]

Technically - and this is a point of irony, IMHO - everything that has ever taken place here in this planet when it comes to viewpoints is a matter of testimony.

Might have to dispute that.. am still chewing it over, but I am not sure that can be said of science (and of course, Scientific Method is only recently codified, but nevertheless the desire to pursue objective truth using empirical evidence and testing of predictions has gone on for thousands of years in one form or another)

My point being, we do not rely on Pythagoras' testimony that the square of the hypotenuse is equal the the sum of the squares of the other 2 sides.. we rely on the fact that he or someone in his name was able to express it so that we can test it for ourselves and find out.

 

[Zoness]

Religious conversion testimonies are especially dubious in my experience; when I briefly began returning to Christianity after paganism I was asked by a pastor to make my testimony more dramatic. He said "I know paganism isn't really like this but could you please sprinkle in some satanist ideas to make your conversion more powerful?"

I had always suspected such stories in church were staged but that sort of confirmed it for me. I know people have real conversion testimonies but honestly they only have meaning to the people who had them. I can't trust them as anything past a story.