Breaking the shackles of faith

[jb_1430]

There is a dearth of good works by atheists to be sure. I don't see their hospitals, nor their works of charity, or even other works to help the poor. I really often see atheists complaining about non atheists. Maybe if they didn't sit around and complain about delusion and actually carried out some good works based on their belief system, it might be more convincing.

I consider myself both a "secular humanest" and an "atheist" and have come to despise both terms for what they have come to represent. A campaign to convert the masses. Never quite understood the motive here in America. Im more concerned for our society without any such moral code. If I were an Afghan living under the rule of the Taliban, i would probably be a more militant atheist but here in America I have no problem with the majority of the people following Christianity. And while it is likely we will become more and more like the godless europeans, I am not looking forward to the occurence. MARK

 

[jb_1430]

no, because we have no religious rhetoric to bind us - we are simply able to explore all paths, and find one which suites ourselves.

If that were only true. Most atheist are full of rhetoric seeking to convert the masses. Seeking to end any advantage the majority has in continuing the faith. MARK

 

[vyo476]

no, because we have no religious rhetoric to bind us - we are simply able to explore all paths, and find one which suites ourselves.

But there is a sense of rhetoric inherent in the statement, "There is no God," which underlies atheism - that statement is all that binds atheists together, but the statement is necessarily a limiting one.

 

[rejs7]

There is a dearth of good works by atheists to be sure. I don't see their hospitals, nor their works of charity, or even other works to help the poor. I really often see atheists complaining about non atheists. Maybe if they didn't sit around and complain about delusion and actually carried out some good works based on their belief system, it might be more convincing.

Actually you are probably using one of their good works to type out you rebuttal on, or when you drive to the mall, or fly to another part of the country.

If you want to get into a pissing match over who has done what to whom and for whom I can crush any lingering nobilty that may remain in any manmade system (of any shade or hue).

You want murding atheists try Pol Pot or Mao; murdering christians try the Americans when they wiped out the native american; murdering muslims try Turkey's genocide against the Armenians - murder is murder under any banner.

If you want saintly christians try Florence Nightingale or Francis of Assisi; saintly theists/athiests try Descharts, Newton, Einstein, and Warran Buffet; saintly muslims try Nehru/ All belief (or lack of belief) systems have the givers and takers - we are equal under on sun after all.

 

[rejs7]

But there is a sense of rhetoric inherent in the statement, "There is no God," which underlies atheism - that statement is all that binds atheists together, but the statement is necessarily a limiting one.

Actually the statement that 'there is no god' is not one that springs to mind when I think of atheism - even Dawkins agress that a 'god' may be possible, but not the concocted nonsense that man seems to have thrown together.

Personally I don't discount the idea that there may be a divine hand, but it certainly isn't Jewish or Arab tribal myths and legends.

 

[vyo476]

Actually the statement that 'there is no god' is not one that springs to mind when I think of atheism - even Dawkins agress that a 'god' may be possible, but not the concocted nonsense that man seems to have thrown together.

Personally I don't discount the idea that there may be a divine hand, but it certainly isn't Jewish or Arab tribal myths and legends.

Atheism

Dictionary.com Unabridged:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

American Heritage dictionary:

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

WorldNet:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God [ant: theism]
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

If Mr. Dawkins believes that it is possible that a God or gods exist, than he is not an atheist. He is then an agnostic.

Agnosticism

Dictionary.com Unabridged:

1. the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

American Heritage Dictionary:

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

WorldNet:

1. a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"
2. the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge

Any acknowledgment of the possibility of the existence of God or gods in one's personal belief system disqualifies one from being considered an "atheist." Mr. Dawkins can rail against organized religions all he wants - he has a lot of valid points about them - but he loses objectivity in his self-identification as an atheist. He is an agnostic, as are most level-headed people who claim atheism.

A rose, by any other name, is still a rose.

 

[baldar]

Actually you are probably using one of their good works to type out you rebuttal on, or when you drive to the mall, or fly to another part of the country.

If you want to get into a pissing match over who has done what to whom and for whom I can crush any lingering nobilty that may remain in any manmade system (of any shade or hue).

You want murding atheists try Pol Pot or Mao; murdering christians try the Americans when they wiped out the native american; murdering muslims try Turkey's genocide against the Armenians - murder is murder under any banner.

If you want saintly christians try Florence Nightingale or Francis of Assisi; saintly theists/athiests try Descharts, Newton, Einstein, and Warran Buffet; saintly muslims try Nehru/ All belief (or lack of belief) systems have the givers and takers - we are equal under on sun after all.

I find it interesting that you decide to confuse theists with "a"theists. Seems like you are attempting to stretch the definition, not to mention change the question.

What great works of charity of "real" atheists, ie those who believe there is no god, have been mentioned here? I am simply asking a straightforward question.

For genocide, yes I could point to people like Pol Pot, or Mao, or Stalin. Three very very prominent atheists who are very much atheists. But I am not seeking to concentrate on simply the negative of a few atheists. My question is what good has been done by atheists for mankind? If they want to espouse their belief system as being the better way, how beyond their anger (and often hatred of other belief systems) do they demonstrate this?

I agree that many, if not most religions or even all religions have periods in which individuals have acted badly. But you must also admist that most religious institutions have built into them the ideal or goal to act well and help their fellow man. I don't see that among atheists. And it is something that would make one review the path which leads to the greater good.

Does atheism lead to the greater good? We already know it is faith based. We only need to ask whether this faith based system is somehow better than others.

 

[rejs7]

I find it interesting that you decide to confuse theists with "a"theists. Seems like you are attempting to stretch the definition, not to mention change the question.

What great works of charity of "real" atheists, ie those who believe there is no god, have been mentioned here? I am simply asking a straightforward question.

For genocide, yes I could point to people like Pol Pot, or Mao, or Stalin. Three very very prominent atheists who are very much atheists. But I am not seeking to concentrate on simply the negative of a few atheists. My question is what good has been done by atheists for mankind? If they want to espouse their belief system as being the better way, how beyond their anger (and often hatred of other belief systems) do they demonstrate this?

I agree that many, if not most religions or even all religions have periods in which individuals have acted badly. But you must also admist that most religious institutions have built into them the ideal or goal to act well and help their fellow man. I don't see that among atheists. And it is something that would make one review the path which leads to the greater good.

Does atheism lead to the greater good? We already know it is faith based. We only need to ask whether this faith based system is somehow better than others.

When applied through humanism atheism is a power of good - with no holy tennets to guide or restrain it, it is free to mould itself to the core of humanity, not some petty prejudices.

And if you want to see Christian 'charity' then look at New Orleans, Baghdad, Darfur etc - most WASP's turn their nose up at the hard issues, preffering to loaf in their own troffs, and poke their snouts up when the ball game is on.

The sooner that the antogonistic, bullying, jumped up Jawah is removed from the world stage, the sooner 2.5 billon human beings can be better educated in the human spirit - education, education, education as Tony Blair once said.

 

[baldar]

Humanism means that there is no evil, simply different perspectives. Hitler was not evil, he had a point of view that was incorrect. The ulitmate justification of humanism is that we come about whatever moral means we desire. I cannot accept such a tenet because it justifies to many wrongs by all peoples.

Restraints of most religions are like loving your neighbor and doing good. Hardly a unique position for religions I know.

And if you want to see Christian 'charity' then look at New Orleans, Baghdad, Darfur etc - most WASP's turn their nose up at the hard issues, preffering to loaf in their own troffs, and poke their snouts up when the ball game is on.

Actually mosts "WASPS" give more to charity than other groups, especially in places like New Orleans, Darfur and Baghdad. They don't turn up their noses, generally they roll up their sleeves. I have a great deal of respect for the protestant charity ethic and its effects. You should read "Who Really Cares" which does an indepth analysis of the demographics of those who give of their time and money.

The sooner that the antogonistic, bullying, jumped up Jawah is removed from the world stage, the sooner 2.5 billon human beings can be better educated in the human spirit - education, education, education as Tony Blair once said.

Education alone is not enough. Hitler was a college graduate, So was Mao. Education is the means by which we dicipline our minds. It is not what helps us make the right choices.

 

[9sublime]

No country was ever built successfully under atheism.

It's never been tried. And don't drag up communism, thats not atheism or agnosticsm.

I've been around the block. I've been to college as I've been to church. I've met atheist people as well as christian families. And I'll tell you this: "Freedom of Thought" is the high-raised banner of scum.

Thats proves you are a person who actually thinks freedom and the ability to be an individual against religion and state.

They're very clever speakers and writers too like this Sublime and Vyo and they above all, above everything want you to believe what they do.

You are the clever writer. I praise you for your ability to write, you attack atheism is a coherent and clever way, but in the end you are a clever speaker and a ***** underneath.

They do this for two reasons. Firstly it's because these sick, perverted, demented mental pedophiles hate when people think alike and live by moral codes.

Ok, this is libel, and I will be speaking with the moderators.. I don't mind people having a quick stab at someone else, its funny if done in good faith and, but this is highly offensive to me and vyo. I don't want to get you off the forum, because then it would stop me from debating with you, but don't call me a peadaphile.

They want to trick you into thinking, feeling, looking at things and behaving the way they do for the sole reason, the sole cause that they do not like superiority, honesty, integrity, chivalry, decency,hard work and the understanding of good and decent things. This is what starts it all, all their DOGMA and rhetoric crap designed to bend you to their own slanted perverted views.

No, religion does all this. Religion only applauds superiority, honesty, integrity, chivalry, decency,hard work and the understanding of good and decent things if it benefits their organization.

 

[Justinian]

hmmm

Sublime, I could make you my slave.




By the way, I called you a mental pedophile if you can grasp what that means. And don't think you are fit to even type "honesty, integrity, chivalry, decency,hard work and the understanding of good and decent things"

 

[9sublime]

Sublime, I could make you my slave.

You seem to be a very sad individual who harbours some very strange delusions, but I'm rather for debating on here that giving bizzare personal attacks. But please, get out of your parents basement.

By the way, I called you a mental pedophile if you can grasp what that means. And don't think you are fit to even type "honesty, integrity, chivalry, decency,hard work and the understanding of good and decent things"

Alright then mate, thats nice, why don't you back up why I can't type that. You can't, because you don't know me or what I've been through.

Mental peadaphile... I believe thats still accusig me of someone who likes sexual relations with children. Its not a well known expression is it.

 

[Justinian]

Yeah

The day when Sublime will convince me is a worthy judge of character...


"The only thing evil needs to triumph over good is for [strong, smart, principled,] good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke

 

[Justinian]

Hmmm

I consider myself both a "secular humanest" and an "atheist" and have come to despise both terms for what they have come to represent. A campaign to convert the masses. Never quite understood the motive here in America. Im more concerned for our society without any such moral code. If I were an Afghan living under the rule of the Taliban, i would probably be a more militant atheist but here in America I have no problem with the majority of the people following Christianity. And while it is likely we will become more and more like the godless europeans, I am not looking forward to the occurence. MARK

I agree. I try to repress that thought among others.

 

[baldar]

I find it interesting that you decide to confuse theists with "a"theists. Seems like you are attempting to stretch the definition, not to mention change the question.

What great works of charity of "real" atheists, ie those who believe there is no god, have been mentioned here? I am simply asking a straightforward question.

For genocide, yes I could point to people like Pol Pot, or Mao, or Stalin. Three very very prominent atheists who are very much atheists. But I am not seeking to concentrate on simply the negative of a few atheists. My question is what good has been done by atheists for mankind? If they want to espouse their belief system as being the better way, how beyond their anger (and often hatred of other belief systems) do they demonstrate this?

I agree that many, if not most religions or even all religions have periods in which individuals have acted badly. But you must also admist that most religious institutions have built into them the ideal or goal to act well and help their fellow man. I don't see that among atheists. And it is something that would make one review the path which leads to the greater good.

Does atheism lead to the greater good? We already know it is faith based. We only need to ask whether this faith based system is somehow better than others.

Bumb because it seems to have been missed.