A humble request for a Christian perspective on the negative implications of Atheism (Best described as secular humanism)

AndAnAlbatross · 2012-02-06T20:16:14.885649+00:00

(Oh please don't degenerate this when you could reply to my points without rancor.)

You've stated some real positions rather politely and I've replied from my own broad experience of four decades. This, therefore, need not be too formal. Given I cannot recount all of their origins (but could come up with many of recent times) .. I will accept your OWN sources by simply seeing the details mentioned within them. Sometimes just hearing the story is enough to consider the anecdotes important.

The details are what count. I say there aren't popular foundations of ethics that don't rely on those last four points (points derived from many Biblical stories, even if not often obeyed in Christian culture)... and I stated what they are.

You can, as it were, go ahead and say "Yes there are secular and independent foundations", accepted ones that are just as fundamental as those I listed. That simply engages all readers and ourselves in a higher discussion from our confidence in facts in our own persons.

If it were formal.. we could dig down deeper... but I'm disappointed that I cannot find any failure of my thesis about Secular ethics.

I will try and help... you could point out how genuine genetics/origins science has at LEAST removed a good degree the West's obsession with race and ancestry. Marriage is free-er now, so ancestry means little in normal life. Race makes little to no difference across almost all civilized ideals. Many roles are being reduced to "equality" simply because there is no reason to avoid it as we use utilitarian "work ethic" and "creativity" and "benefit to society" as a sort of general cover for defining a social good.

My question, then, is why use those critieria. We deliberately defy considering "productivity" for the poor and disabled. We do not believe might defines right. We don't consider "social good" to be that important at ALL in the face of independent thought and free speech. Where do we found these principles, then?

SyntheticSylence · 2012-02-06T20:04:22.584480+00:00

I would agree in large part... excepting only that we're on the "front" of non-Christians who, at times, merely hate us and go through the motions of reasoning. Some do better and should not be wiped with the same brush.. and some here debate subjects that can be disputed among brothers (like Paul and Peter!).

But I wonder the effects of our rants when we aren't speaking to pharisees, corruptors of our faith who should know better, and are instead speaking to contempt-filled Romans. In this time, at least, they cannot begin a persecution and rout us from town... but what ARE we to speak in the public sphere?

roseforemily · 2012-02-06T18:46:22.208737+00:00

just act as if they don't exist.

There's the active part.

If someone told me to fear the unicorns or put my hope in unicorn-horn-tea ... I'd actively avoid them and actively denounce their solutions and actively discount their warnings. I live in a world of action and so do you.... not some microscopic little cell of invisible thinking.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T18:41:41.508204+00:00

A pragmatic person will adapt based on reality, an ideological person such as yourself, will continue to cling to obsolete concepts and attack anyone who seeks to bring them down to earth and reality.

A pragmatic person will adapt based on reality [and show curiosity more than accepted slogans], an ideological person such yourself, will continue to cling to faddish blithe statements and attack anyone who seeks to bring them down to earth and reality.

You aren't even curious to wonder if you appear ideological and that you accept blithely repeated statements without question?

EDIT: In a much more serious note, because I have concrete experience with cults, aren't you at all concerned that you cast yourself in such a glowing superior light that you cannot even consider "outsiders" speaking about your words and accepted and repeated mantras? It is cultic to be so self-assured over any other group. It is very hard to escape that thinking.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T18:35:04.498865+00:00

[sigh] Silly atheist is silly in making believe he knows Christian doctrine.

I don't hate. You are the one who hates.

Why?

All I want to do is educate people so they can make informed choices based on rational, logical evidence, as opposed to fear, shame and coercion, which are the weapons of choice you wield.

You are the one who has to villify the non-believer. You have to make me the "enemy" because you are the one who has trouble peacefully co-existing with others who don't share your delusion.

You are the person who has trouble with reality, which is why you have to create this strawman, of the "hateful atheist" who wants to "destroy christians" in order for you to justify your own hatred and intolerance.

Oop.. Pyooo. Looks to me like you just hated on the floor there. You need to clean that up... because you ate something stinky someone other than I said.... or you just hated from raw material.

I can peacefully co-exist with christians as long as they acknowledge the same realities we both share, that can be proven.

So as long as the re-education camps get the right "results" from Christians, you "co-exist"... with them? They pass your test... and you "co-exist". I guess freedom isn't really free here. Do we get to give you any tests first, before we co-exist?

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T18:29:13.233023+00:00

Here's my one claim about you directly as an "ad hominem":

You're not a fit representative for the scientific method or you'd look into the scientific article [about religion being selected for in evolution]

Here's your claims. WAYY too huge to stifle giggles. No reasoning needed.

You do not have truth, nor logic, nor "etymology" on your side,

like most theists, you seek to redefine what "truth", "faith", "logic", "atheism" and other terms mean in order to move the goalposts

[you] give your ever-fleeting air of legitimacy another nanosecond of consideration.

Hypocrite much? This is why I don't have anything to say to you. It isn't even a "debate" style!! Grow up!

AndAnAlbatross · 2012-02-06T18:05:28.256740+00:00

even educated Christian morality fundamentally differs from educated secular humanist and/or scientific morality.

I heartily disagree. Humanism is utterly impoverished and speechless in the face of base foundations of morality. It comes often down to "equality is good to notice, but not to extremes" and "suffering of anyone is pretty much a bad thing". After that the lambasting of other groups seems to commence because there's so little to say.

Many have the fascinating little euphemism of Judeo-Christian long-term and pan-social mores ... saying "poor choices were made" or "good choices were made" but that means nothing. Others value a "benefit to society" over short term benefits, but that has huge holes and exceptions as well because what is a "benefit"? Confucianism devotes itself fiercely to "social order" and yet repels many secularists. Still others imply that politeness and pleasantries are the nature of Humanist Righteousness.. but that gives no barrier to hiding problems deep down in horrible ways. Others give the non-answer that "balance is the answer to everything" and end the discussion there without questions.

Post-Modern / Deconstruction thought has even come up with an entire fairy-tale system of morality, one that they impose but never question because it follows the fairy-tale they generate every time. Their great crusade is to bringing down all too-precise moral discourses because they assuredly violate either (A) their own slightly related bases of morality, usually by hearsay or association or (B) violate an undefined sense of "fairness" and promote a need for "retribution that leads to equality" somehow. Thereby we found in the 90s that white males were at the bottom of the barrel but couldn't confront the white males actually listening with a single real crime they could halt or pay compensation for.

Utterly impoverished.

If we DO start with more self-consistent types of morality.. the field does not look much better. Other branches of philosophy about ethics, ones assuredly that have no need of Judeo-Christian culture, often come down to might-is-right and selfish-victory-defines-the-righteous.

So in almost all cases I've EVER seen.. its a Judeo-Christian basics. These usually come down to (A) fairness is due everyone by their being "created equal", a sense of (B) sin does exist in life and temptation in all people and it must then be rejected with forgiveness offered someday for the sinner, (C) an allowance that anyone can discover a universal truth at any time (even if via an unattractive messenger) and lastly (D) possessions and positions prove no real moral quality of anyone but only show some effort may have been repaid well in previous times. Many of these are directly contrary to other social systems... yet most in the West will adhere tightly to them without knowing why.

AndAnAlbatross · 2012-02-06T16:04:49.082311+00:00

I don't consider atheism appalling, I consider all of mankind to be depraved and I thank God for his grace.

This is the good point. The rather consistent tone of "those Christians hate us so we must remember they are our enemies" is just a phenomenon of late on the Internet in r/atheism and its an adolescent one at best. There may be many "Christians" who form simple bigotry or have a view of atheists as "outsiders" or self-declared "libertines" but ... well they are not in the real cosmopolitan world. As our European brethren note, many Christians do very well to note they are a minority. Some atheists have attempted to convince me there is no open support for drinking or sex or drugs anywhere within the confines of the United States and I'm afraid I have to disagree in the extreme.

The only statement I would make as a Christian is that an atheist is a bit more likely to be hard to pin down morally. It is often an evasive statement to be an atheist, these days, as it is only a "protest vote". It is an endless question to ask about and the only reply is just offense that it is asked. For many (unless they define themselves as Humanist, which is a more clear statement) there is no discussing their model of ethics and they feel common sense is obvious [which history shows it is not]. Its very very likely, in fact, they share a very Judeo-Christian sense of morality and that's what they've adopted to carry out.

There are completely a-moral people who state they are such and atheism is a natural attraction for them to throw off any false impressions, and there are those who are attracted to the unencumbered new start they feel they have in a moral standard.

The only extreme similar problem in our country, stated once by a fellow Christian from Brazil, is that those (esp. politicians) who declare loudly that they are Christian can at times be seen to be the least predictable because their morality may very well include lying to cover whatever activities they like. Openly declare you're in the majority and then from there you can re-moralize everything.

SyntheticSylence · 2012-02-06T06:50:29.576934+00:00

The root is pride .. but I've found the "hook", the beginning of the counterfeit that is NOT false, is hope. Hope that a question or imposed question by way of clear confusion on a matter.... can be served best by some sort of answer.

That is what I do find quite disturbing, from some, in that many feel answering questions or even entertaining them from non-believers is ... too scary. I feel it is cold and assuredly disobeys Christ.

Even so, when the questions turn into what they usually are: a means of conveying contempt or bellicose prodding... then the counterfeit is complete and I either get drawn into the falsehood or I run away more properly.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T06:41:34.120063+00:00

How weak is your logic!?!?!?!? The clear consequence is there.

I also think atheism is an action/decision, because it is a ... belief! Duh.

The mindless cultic re-write of the word "theo-ismos" and adding "a-" instead of "poly-" or "mono-" or "pan-" as somehow a statement of a mere "lack" of "theism" is insipid... dumb... stupid and inherently fraught with philosophical AND etymological problems.

Therefore, because of its obvious problems, it is NOW repeated mindlessly and now (as I just received) mindless references as "Well that's just what it means now.. so we must adapt!" because little creativity and little curiosity cannot tolerate pursuing to ask "Why is this so?!!"

The idea that it is a lack of belief, a lack of action, a lack of anything at all except ... well... (for some reason) endless sources of diatribes on the Internet, and beyond to TONS of consequences in life, morality, society and community, eschatology, epistemology therein (ask any old-school atheist and they'll side with me).

Its a decision... an explanation applied to debatable data with little clear consequence. People move toward it in order to make better explanations than the ones they've been offered, but several of its explanations are disquieting too.

SyntheticSylence · 2012-02-06T05:33:41.567951+00:00

What you should do, my brother/sister is come and confess here or elsewhere relevant. You should compare yourself to the Example in Christ and the great examples of the faithful and wise and humble throughout history. Then you should realize you also bring a good burden on those who ALSO need to confess, and realize you relieve your burden as others affirm your judgement is clear and truly needed to stop your and others' mistakes.

To have re-pented (re-thought) is such an achievement in comparison to not considering any hesitation.

I myself find I am fully furious at times when my OLD "god" ... the high and lofty ideal of rational thought, discussion, and clear-minded communication among smart people ... is halfheartedly lifted up for a moment as a good thing, then dashed to the ground in the name of partisan name-calling and proud proud ignorance. Some dance a mocking jig in the name of victory over another when no statement but a claim of their own superiority was even made.

Of course.. the Spirit of Truth has no quarrel with any rational thought of Truth, but the Spirit has no support for ham-handed mis-delivery of the Gospel... at my lips.

I am very hard-pressed in myself to realize where my LOUD advocacy for "thinking" and "curiosity" and investigation .... becomes merely diving into the fray where no fruit appears at all. One core aspect of "cultic" thought... thought that is affirmed by its familiarity alone ... and I MUST REALIZE there is no use to my old household gods of "let's argue this longer" or "surely you can see reason as I trot these points out".

Your statements about theology are wonderful, themselves! I agree, where is theology, solid foundations, helpful if a Pharisee destroys them and never lives them out! Even so... I affirm I see a clear-minded theology can support answers when we're not sure what applies. In the same way I am SO prone to believing logic can at least penetrate the quarrelsome and predisposed minds of some... when nothing does. For myself it has been wonderfully inspiring and helpful! Maybe not so for others who won't listen and bring abuse as a sport.

I confess I am not pleasant.. and toy simply with the same name-calling and point-drilling and evasion they do. That's one of the many currencies of the internet discussion groups and has been since I started in the late 80s... but it is so... fruitless.

I pose the question to other, less Internet-savvy Christians and their first thought is that pleasant-appearance is the only language they think is spoken. It seems ignorant... but as I see it so often, I wonder if they resemble Christ more than me. Even at a Bible study where they squirm if someone asks hard questions. Maybe sometimes Love is the only clearest language that Heaven hands us.

I, and maybe we, must meditate and read more on that and on John (and James!).

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T05:14:39.020410+00:00

You're confusing actions taken based on a belief with the belief itself.

You're confused in thinking they somehow appear separately. At least, not when the belief is real and substantial!

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T04:52:26.769159+00:00

Do you often do an end-zone dance right in the middle of the field? After a fumble? Because you just ... well.. hate the other side alot? (That's all you're saying).

I see no facts or logic in this... just junior high gloating. Booorrrrinnnng. I hope no books were disturbed in the making of this huge intellect!

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T04:50:17.914034+00:00

Which means, that by its nature, humanity will eventually kill itself off.

You, by happenstance, appear to have gotten to the same general conclusion as the Judeo-Christian tradition. No wonder?

Go hypothesize that Christians will cause the downfall of society then walk by your very Judeo-Christian law history books, your church-supported universities, hospitals, schools... etc. After 1850 it was mostly Capitalism, assuredly, but getting there was optional.

Or you can wallow in your hate and imagine the world will collapse unless people like you destroy your enemies. I wonder how many other religions follow that? Jesus didn't.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T04:47:23.852045+00:00

Gee. Childishly off topic.

We both know your "faith" is not affected by the fact that there's no direct evidence that the anti-god approach is better at anything at all... except mocking.

Not any better at getting to the Truth of any matter. Few societies even found any success using the scientific method... because they didn't believe progress was possible. Only those who felt there was a Creator depended wholly on it... and on the power of making a buck... until they found (in the Renaissance and afterward) that principles were powerful, as if a Creator had ordained them.

It is also not any better at determining what your moral tasks are in life. At least ... not ever happening without the screamingly huge potent habit of modern Western Liberal Judeo-Christian Lawful civilization in your bloodstream and mind.

As for Atheism... its just what your homies value right now... because your religion has no reason to be curious about itself!

physicists910 · 2012-02-06T04:41:52.271718+00:00

In many ways I cannot agree more... but that is a different perspective than was presented by the poster.

Forget the nervous pursuit of absolute truth. But don't give up on knowledge.

If you act on it... if you depend on it.... it is Truth enough. Lies aren't "knowledge" but a decisive obstacle to one. Give up on the 100.00000%. Give up even on 99.9999%. You already invest every day in 90% or even 1.5 sigma. If it is closer than falsehood is... it is an aspect of truth. If it is constant over all time.. .it is an aspect of Truth (cap T).

THAT is the effective, obvious and common definition of truth: Reliable enough to be tested by depending on it.= and expecting no change.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T04:38:50.259880+00:00

We're not talking about performing or pretending about atheism.

Silly Atheist. You perform every day for everyone you care about and every place you write words as "FreeThought" or "Not-So-Free-Atheo-Thought".

You are on a stage. You are visible. You are obfuscating and needlessly confused. Sorry for you. Enough.

stephenmt · 2012-02-06T01:53:54.239847+00:00

Utilitiarian-ism rearing its ugly head again. C.S.Lewis said "a bottle of port can make me happy." Religion, as it were, does not make him happy.

We can indeed see that something is good and helpful about meetings of Ekklesia, but the role we take before God has many things to both offer and withdraw from what we would want otherwise.

physicists910 · 2012-02-06T01:40:57.925964+00:00

Simply ... you DON'T know that Truth doesn't exist ... in any place where Truth could exist.

If you know things is an abstracted question, from 0% knowledge to 100% knowledge... what would you permit as knowledge of the Truth?

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T01:27:53.121922+00:00

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/trust

Blah blah blah. Definition #1 of faith. So much blather and self-enforced ignorance. Its not like we have an internet out here!?!?

Damn you're boring.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T01:11:24.795084+00:00

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enact

Look up your own words and be less confused.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-05T18:10:40.063103-07:00

You're not reading. Actions are visible.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T01:10:10.376767+00:00

No curiosity. Disappointing. Just talking up your side. This is a sad time for scholariship and science!

If this is "new" and "accepted"... and not recent, a manipulated definition... explain this. Have some curiosity.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

A-Theists have to be living things? They LACK BELIEF! That's all you allow. Then an a-theist is a lack of a living thing that believes in a god. I am, in fact, an "a-continental" being an "a-electronic" being. I am many many things... which means the "a-" construct is useless and linguistically stupid to imagine.

You should know as much as anyone that mathematics abhors definitions solely placed in negations. The "a-" construct applies to "theos". "Without god".

you're just a troll.

You're not a fit representative for the scientific method or you'd look into the scientific article.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-05T18:05:07.223001-07:00

Evolution is that which prefers the tragedy of the commons. That's why all competing predators starve after herbivores have a population crash. We're demonstrating it yet again with carbon energy consumption.

The question is... can you detach from the ideals the evolution pushes as your basis of morality? Can you imagine something beyond mere evolution? If so... why?

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_washing_in_Judaism#Washing_the_hands

Actually Judaism is really one of the first big sources of the sense of "the unclean". Other useful scientific concepts (energy flow, genetics, law, avoiding superstitious precepts, abstract mathematics .. etc) came about as well.

Pilebsa · 2012-02-06T01:02:49.382999+00:00

Gee... cowboy... stop gaying it up.

This is about the semantics of words and the sociology of a belief group.

jeezfrk

TROPHY CASE

jeezfrk

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login