START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Atheism Has a Women Problem


Society & Culture  (tags: religion, women, society, culture, atheism, interesting )

Carrie
- 454 days ago - alternet.org
From Hitchens to Dawkins, the most prominent faithless are white men. The movement needs to take a look at itself -- and church history



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Brian M. (197)
Monday July 22, 2013, 1:07 pm
Ann Druyan, widow of Carl Sagan, is a respected author, scientist, and well known atheist. There is a fairly lengthy list of awesome female atheists at: http://www.blaghag.com/2010/01/large-list-of-awesome-female-atheists.html
 

Lois Jordan (56)
Monday July 22, 2013, 4:43 pm
Noted. Thanks, Carrie. I remember the most famous atheist of my childhood was Madalyn Murray O'Hare. She was demonized by the press & public....not the "camera-ready-model-type." So, I can understand the reluctance. On the other hand, why need a church? It seems to me that most who have denounced religion are not interested in attending a church of any sort. I count myself among them.
 

Kit B. (276)
Monday July 22, 2013, 5:43 pm

I have a problem with the author's lack of research and understanding about atheism. Atheist do not want a church, and there are many brilliant writers that happen to be both atheist and female. Brian offered one very good list and there are others. Atheists generally do not wear their lack of religious inclination as a label pin. It is a logical formation of ideas and not every atheist thinks alike nor can they be a easily packaged into one group as this author desires.
 

Jason S. (57)
Monday July 22, 2013, 7:13 pm
Good posting, thanks
 

Yvonne White (232)
Monday July 22, 2013, 7:23 pm
Athiests don't need no stinking "churchs", and women are more careful who they tell that they are athiest or agnostic or Wiccan..we Have to be careful, RepubliCONs love witch hunts & wife beating!;)
Plus my goddess is selfish & only accepts VISA..;)
 

Carrie B. (309)
Monday July 22, 2013, 7:34 pm
Most of us know that there are brilliant women atheists out there, but I think the author is talking about a "new" movement that actually wants an official church. The very idea of a church for atheists seems odd to me.
 

Yvonne White (232)
Monday July 22, 2013, 7:37 pm
A church for athiests seems hypocritical to me.
 

Carrie B. (309)
Monday July 22, 2013, 7:44 pm
Exactly my point Yvonne.
 

Suzanne L. (155)
Monday July 22, 2013, 8:00 pm
Hadn't heard about the new atheists who want a church before this. What would they do there?
 

Carrie B. (309)
Monday July 22, 2013, 8:02 pm
Make a pledge to not pray, Suzanne.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 12:52 am
It is my observation that atheists are the most enthusiastic "evangelists" I've ever met. They are much worse than Bible pounders,

They have a right to NOT believe. That's their choice.

I have a right to believe having received much proof and indisputable evidence. I have a right to believe in God. I'm as intelligent as the most belligerent atheist. I've had a few atheists tackle me. I was able to come back with proof. I was able to show up their doctrine as full of error.

The result, "I'm not going to talk to you anymore. What's the use?"

Good. You get my dander up and my ego, which I believe is my worst enemy, is going to make my head too big to fit through the door. And it costs money to make the door bigger. lol


 

Helen Porter (40)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 12:58 am
This article talks about Church History.

There's a wonderful site full of church history and videos and whatever,
TENTBUILDER is the name. It is not the distorted Christianity we have today. It does have the writings of the EARLY Christians and lots of historical data. Did you know the rapture already happened in 70 A D
The historian Josephus, (hope I spelled it right) recorded the rapture.

Constantine distorted Christianity to make it a tool to control the populace, you know, the same old power/money ideas. Well TENTBUILDER is overflowing with history and evidence.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 1:05 am
If there are any atheists out there getting ready to challenge me, forget it. I really don't care
what you don't believe.

I have determined that I won't talk to you anymore either.

It just gets my ego up and going and I honestly believe ego is the worst enemy I have.

It makes me miserable when it gets to gloating......I don't want any ME ME ME trips! lol

Happiness is found in not receiving for self alone but in receiving to share.

I choose to remember that.

 

Mike F. (2)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 9:47 am
Zee Kallah, I think you're hearing from the most extreme atheists. Many wouldn't bother to tell you they're atheist unless you asked and most sure wouldn't tell you not to believe anything you want. You're just stereotyping an entire group. I'll tell you you're view on atheists is exactly the way many atheists see Christians, because the ones they know are Christians are the ones pushing it down their throats.
 

Allan Yorkowita (445)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 10:16 am
Aside from this article's focus, and lack of any information.....Women, as far back as the Ancient Minoans, have a spiritual core that separates them from men. Matriarchal societies were the norm; MOTHER Earth was revered. This is testified in myth, and unearthed finds. The feminine ruled.
It wasn't until the male slaughter brought on by Rome did we move away from the spritual; women never again gaining a meaningful foothold in a male dominated world.
 

Past Member (0)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 11:02 am
Well said Mike F.

Thanks for the article Carrie.

 

jan b. (3)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 11:14 am
I knew a few atheists but never dwelled on the subject. No matter...some people like to blah-blah-blah on a particular subject....it is what it is.
 

Dot A. (133)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 11:27 am
the spark
we all have a spark
and whether or not we express our spark with similar vocabulary
it matters not
for what is truth
is acted upon
and what we do
speaks our belief
our useless dribble
only melts as snowflakes upon warm sand
walk accordingly
as talk is free
and action - is energy
and from there we can proceed
with both energies
of fe/male
working together
as in all of nature
 

Suzanne B. (246)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 12:03 pm
thank you for sharing this!
 

caroline s. (80)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 12:03 pm
Well said Mike F. !
 

Amy Fisher (11)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 12:27 pm
I think the problem is the usual one: The media tend to pay more attention to what men have to say on any given subject than to women. The female atheists are out there, but they need more publicity.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 1:12 pm
I've had similar experiences to Zee. I've lost count of the number of male and female atheist extremists had tried to convert me...

And when they see that they're not convincing with their Me, Me, Me arguments, they insult me before 'leaving in a cloud of huff and puff'.

To start off with the number of brands of atheism is at least less than the number of brands of Christianity... Was and often still am surprised that I seem to have heard it all as to what atheists believe and don't believe.. But them wanting a church is the first surprise in many a year!

Wonder if it is the moderates or extremists that want the church ...
 

Alexa R. (333)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 1:24 pm
PS. I've even had some of these atheist extremist threatening me with "eventually every person on the earth will be an atheist, why not convert now willingly, why wait until you're forced to convert?"

 

Shan D. (49)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 1:28 pm
"Hadn't heard about the new atheists who want a church before this. What would they do there?" (Suzanne L.)

Probably what other churches do - fleece the gullible while paying no taxes. The notion of a "secular church" is sheer nonsense.
------
"I have determined that I won't talk to you anymore either." (Zee Kallah)

Good. Then you won't be wasting your energy posting about how you're not going to post here.
------
"It wasn't until the male slaughter brought on by Rome did we move away from the spritual; women never again gaining a meaningful foothold in a male dominated world." (Allan Yorkowitz)

Actually, this happened long before Rome came along. Rome just helped spread it faster.
 

Jamie Clemons (282)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 1:35 pm
Why would a non-religion even want a church? I would have thought that they had enough of that crap already.
 

Patsy Olive (0)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 1:35 pm
Well,one thing for sure,when Jesus Christ comes back,you will have a different view,but then it will be to late to change your mind.
 

Debra Tate (17)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 2:42 pm
Noted
 

Susan E. (7)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 2:49 pm
The writer seems to miss the point that being an atheist simply means a lack of belief. There is no need to join the social group that is a church. Atheism requires no preaching, nor evangelizing. Since women tend to be less argumentative, many simply keeps their lack of belief to themselves. No publicity nor moralizing is necessary.
Don’t forget that in the Bible Belt areas of the country, it is prudent for an atheist, Pagan, or any other non Christian to keep her head down.
 

Susan E. (7)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 2:51 pm
Further, It seems to me that a lack of belief being called a movement is pretty much an oxymoron.
 

Kate Kenner (201)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 3:12 pm
A church? Whatever for? I am an atheist, actually I call myself a cultural and historical jewish atheist asI don't practice Judaism but it is my history and turn the holidays into what I want. There is no mention of God in them but I get to enjoy them anyway. If I din't go to temple I sure am not going to a church. Just the word connotes religion-a Christian one that I have never been or ever will be a part of.
 

Dot A. (133)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 3:25 pm
being present
is the spirit
and no church can hold it in
[some believe in money, some believe in fame, some believe in the power of love, and it comes back again]
our words fail
our hearts prevail
 

Helen Porter (40)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 4:07 pm
CORRECTION the site is TENTMAKER not tent builder.

All I can say is it was really late and I was really tired.

And I do make mistakes.

Sorry about that.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 4:17 pm
I also want to apologize for coming on too heavy. A few members pointed that out to me and I sent each a green star.

What I can learn from this is, if I feel too volcanic about a matter, settle down before I comment.

I do try to learn from my mistakes. lol
 

Birgit W. (147)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 4:25 pm
AMEN! I just wished our churches would stop brainwashing people.
 

Lauren Berrizbeitia (68)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 4:50 pm
Oh dear, the new atheists are "a movement" and they want a church and don't have many women in their ranks? This is fascinating and odd news to an old atheist who isn't part of any movement (no trying to get others to believe or not-believe as I do), has no interest in proselytizing, and certainly wouldn't want to make a church out of my lack of interest in organized religion and religious dogma. What's the world coming to?
 

Carrie B. (309)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 4:57 pm
No problem Zee. We all get a little too enthusiastic at times. I'm sure no one took it personally. You are a good person and it shows.
 

Brian M. (197)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 5:06 pm
The New Atheism is not a religion nor does it "want a church." These religionist concepts are the kind of disinformation that religionists try to foist on the public in order to try and discredit atheism as being no more valid or invalid than any other religion. Atheism, however, is NOT a religion. It is freedom from religion and religious thinking especially dogma and superstition. The so called "New Atheism" isn't really different in terms of rationalism, logic, or rejection of beliefs without evidence. Like whatever atheism before the New Atheism was called, new atheism rejects blind faith. Ideas to be called facts must be backed up with real evidence, not just appeals to authority figures, books of myths, or invisible magical beings. The most unique thing about the New Atheism is its refusal to be kept in the shadows any longer. The New Atheism will not tolerate the stupidity of blind faith politely and quietly. It is in your face and more than willing to point out BS wherever it finds it. We need to throw out cultish blind faith in primitive, inaccurate notions. We need critical thinking to solve the problems of the 21st century. Faith will accomplish nothing.
 

marie c. (168)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 5:52 pm
Oh Brian so sorry but your comments made me laugh
Trying to explain New Atheism look what happened to New Labor in UK what a bunch of fast talking fools who put us into millions of debt I smile at people putting NEW in front of something and it only gets worse
Who cares about basically non believers thats a choice so good luck but why make such a fuss about something they do not believe in and even give it a name
 

Jeremy S. (3)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 6:22 pm
Some of these comments remind me of my little sister's comments when we were children, "Nothing must be something, or there wouldn't be a word for it, right?"

I don't know about that, although I admire the French existentialists. Point is, I'm sure female atheists are there, but are just keeping quiet and making less fuss than the rest of us. Which is admirable. I'm sure they see the flaw in setting up churches to the great God of Atheism...
 

GGmaSheila D. (172)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 6:34 pm
Some of the comments were better than this article...Sorry, but too bull to be valid. Athiests & a church??
 

Kit B. (276)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 7:17 pm

Oh yeah - Atheists are out there daily trying to covert people to WHAT? Geesh! The NEW atheist group is almost entirely made up by the religious right wing. What would atheist do in a church? Talk about the many books they have read and share thoughts and ideas. And...not one of those books have the word bible in the title. We have no need to pledge to not pray - the idea is not in our repertoire. We do not seek comfort from magic. There is no god of atheism, atheists do not care what you do, how you do it or when...they just want to be left alone to enjoy their choice for life. If you knew where to look, women atheist are just as vocal and notable as men. It's all out there on the Internet and dare I say it, in books.
 

Shan D. (49)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 7:36 pm
"PS. I've even had some of these atheist extremist threatening me with "eventually every person on the earth will be an atheist, why not convert now willingly, why wait until you're forced to convert?"" (Alexa R.)

Alexa, there are indeed some "militant atheists" who want to burn down/blow up every church on the planet - and every mosque, temple, shrine, and whatever other religious sites may exist. These people are just as extreme, in my opinion, as any Christian who forces people to pray, or threatens them with death if they don't convert to Christianity (or Islam, or whatever other religion).

I'm an atheist, and if I hope to "convert" people away from relying on myth and magic to form the basis of government and education, it's through the use of REASON, *not* violence. Violence is the way of religious zealots and terrorists. And by the way, the most infamous example of people being forced to convert... is the Inquisition. You know, the centuries-long stranglehold on peoples' thoughts and consciences perpetrated by the Catholic church.

People were starved, whipped, tortured, and burned at the stake for daring not to be Christian, or at least not the right *kind*. And you dare get on your high horse about atheists?
 

Kit B. (276)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 8:38 pm

Nicely done, Shan. The question still remains, convert to what?
 

Alexa R. (333)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 11:17 pm
Susan E. (7)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 2:49 pm
The writer seems to miss the point that being an atheist simply means a lack of belief.

Kit B. (333)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 8:38 pm

..The question still remains, convert to what?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll try and address both at the same time - but I'm probably going to regret it as I'm simply going to get atheism belief rammed down my throat once more in an insulting manner devoid of any reason or logic ..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Atheist means "lack of belief" .. really? Says who? Atheists? You?

Are you trying to brainwash me into your belief about what it means to be atheist, insulting in the process my reason and logic by not even bothering to provide any reasoned argument or evidence even though I have my own reasoned, evidence based conclusion which I formed over many years and through many discussions that atheists DO have beliefs?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Firstly, my dictionary, as well as an online definition on atheism says:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. a•the•ist (ˈeɪ θi ɪst) n. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To disbelieve something is to believe that something or someone does not exist even though you have no evidence to back it up, "mental rejection of something as untrue" without any facts or evidence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Convert to what?

Convert to, among others the following beliefs ("mental rejection of something as untrue" without any facts or evidence):

1. there is no god(s)
2. what i can perceive with my senses is the only reality there is
3. all peoples are eventually going to become atheists
4. being atheist is a higher, more progressed state of being ie. supreme state of human mental progression
5. atheism is a system of thinking devoid of belief
6. atheism, or lack of belief in god has never caused any wars, genocides
7. being an atheist means one is never brainwashed
8. being atheist means one never brainwash or try to brainwash (a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas)
9. being atheist is a solution to problems faced by humanity, the only reasoned solution and therefore superior
10. unless someone is atheist, they cannot be reasoned, have critical thinking or believe something backed up by evidence
11. anyone who is not atheist is brainwashed
12. being atheist means one makes up one's own belief system (oxymoron as i thought another of their beliefs is that they don't have a belief system ..)
13. atheists are not violent nor will starve, whip, torture, burn, etc others for not believing in atheist beliefs
14. atheists do not proselytize (advocate or promote a belief or course of action)
15. being atheist means someone is unique, unlike religious peoples

....

I don't have time to list more of the beliefs of atheists, time I already resent as I'm only too familiar with the response I'm going to get .. none of the above are well reasoned, evidenced beliefs and I disbelieve all 15 of the above atheist beliefs - my disbelieves are well reasoned, thought through using critical thinking, backed up with evidence, fact and personal experience ..

Even agnostics cannot claim a devoid of belief systems, and on the point of god, they truly have no belief ..

Belief systems are part of human nature ..
 

Brian M. (197)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 11:35 pm
Anyone who would claim that atheists have a belief system understands a lot less about atheists than they think. Atheists aren't interested in beliefs, only verifiable knowledge. I've never met any atheists who were remotely interested in "converting" believers to other beliefs or "converting" anyone to atheism. By use of critical thinking skills, atheists may point out the substantial flaws of belief systems, but this isn't the same as the proselytizing that typifies the activities of religionists. New atheism is characterized by a particular militancy. No one is trying to convert the believers to logic, reason, or science...because if human beings lack the critical thinking ability to logically conclude for themselves that religion and faith-based nonsense are irrational and not worthy of veneration, then it can hardly come as a surprise that many of the more vocal advocates of New Atheism feel free to humiliate, mock, and ridicule the pathetic slaves of irrational belief systems and primitive myth.
 

Shan D. (49)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 11:35 pm
Alexa, I have to wonder why you gave me a green star. Don't mistake me - I always appreciate them, as every time I get enough of them, they get converted into tree planting or meals for shelter kittens. But did you actually read the rest of my post?

You are not an atheist, so kindly stop telling me what I believe. I met you halfway - wouldn't the courteous, civil thing be for you to do likewise? It was Jesus who talked about the Golden Rule, wasn't it? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." My grandfather, who was also an atheist, told me when I was a young child that if everyone followed this rule, the world would be a much better place.

The only part of your above post I agree with is that "belief systems are part of human nature" - because that's the conclusion I've reached from my anthropological and classical history studies. But just because they seem to be part of human nature, that doesn't make them infallibly right.

As for "...atheists are not violent nor will starve, whip, torture, burn, etc others for not believing in atheist beliefs..." - if you're going to plagiarize my post, at least don't twist it around to something that is not only blatantly false, but is really quite insulting.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 11:42 pm
Alexa, you have presented facts, placed in a coherent non threatening manner, Your intellect is guiding you and not the emotion that seems to guide the atheists whom I have met, There is no reasoning with the ones who have tried to take away my right to believe in my proven higher power,

According to my consideration, Atheism is a valid spiritual path. There are many lessons to be learned on Earth. Atheism teaches self reliance and responsibility. Atheism, in their window dressing, appears to be very compassionate and helpful to others. Atheist believe what is incomprehensible, that by accident an intricate universe of infinite beauty can happen by accident.

Imagome if I invited an atheist to stay in my house overnight and I then placed a creation of intricate beauty and near perfection in my living room. Atheist comes downstairs and sees this beautiful creation.

"How did you get this,"

I say," remember those boxes of many tiny beauties and forms you helped me bring in last night. The one we put on the floor, Well, while all were sleeping it just assembled by accident."

That atheist wouldn't believe accident for a second.

Yet they want to claim that all the infinite beauty, the mathematical exactness, all of this wonder of the universe just came about my accident?

Give me a break!
 

Tom Edgar (56)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 12:01 am
Susan You are so off the track you are on another planet. I repeat verbatim from your collation.."To disbelieve something is to believe," etc .Now if that is not, grammatically speaking, one thing negating another I know not what it is.

Athiests and I am an octogenarian lifelong one. Have no belief in the existence of a God. That is not having a belief there is no God. There is a very great difference. As my ex Prime Minister, incidentally a female and an atheist said when questioned about her non belief. I have never been give a reason nor evidence to make me believe. As for evidence of something that has no existence I think that is a preposterous question to ask. Asking for evidence that you, and others, of the Believing fraternity have has always failed to produce a tittle of verifiable, replicable, material, proof of the existence of any God be it Allah, Jehovah, Kali, or any of the thousands of present and past Deities
 

Alexa R. (333)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 12:04 am
Shan D. (33)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 11:35 pm

The only part of your above post I agree with is that "belief systems are part of human nature" - because that's the conclusion I've reached from my anthropological and classical history studies. But just because they seem to be part of human nature, that doesn't make them infallibly right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really? Does this mean you don't believe point #1?

1. there is no god(s)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sorry you feel I've not met you half way .. I thought I more than did so .. and did so respectfully ..
 

Alexa R. (333)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 1:42 am
Tom, and how is denying the existence of a god not a belief? What is your reasoning?

I hope you're not expecting me to simply 'take your word for it'?

I'm not prone to brainwashing through sweeping statements, even atheist ones. Contrary to popular opinion, even though i'm religious something must make sense to me and be based in evidence before i would accept it as a reasonable opinion or belief.

 

Lona Goudswaard (71)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 6:24 am
Definitely not noted. I stopped reading this article after " [] the next generation, with its more spiritual brand of non-belief, and its ambition to build an atheist church." The author clearly has no concept of what atheism is and only has put this together to propagate religionist concepts that are, as Brian M correctly states "the kind of disinformation that religionists try to foist on the public."

This piece is in essence anti-atheist and is meant to appeal to those who can not see beyond their own beliefs nor accept that there are others who do not believe at all. And most of the discussion above seems to be exactly about that.

I do not care if it is called New or Old or whatever, most Atheists have no wish to convert because the word 'conversion' in itself implies a belief. For an atheist there is no belief to convert to, only rational, logical thinking, so don't try using the word to haul atheists to your side and way of thinking.

I'll have no part in trying to convince anyone here that my way of thinking is the right one, but do not take my rights to think what I think by 'translating' it to your belief system and turning me into a believer too because it suits you.
 

Dot A. (133)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 7:25 am
The AGE of competition continues, as power is the almightiest of aaphrodisiacs, and women have forever been threatened to upset the domination of male prowess. A tidbit of information regarding Hypatia of Alexandria below, - the details are not complete regarding this woman who wished to introduce reason into this world for good purposes:

Hypatia of Alexandria-

..... - Scholasticus then introduces Hypatia, the female philosopher of Alexandria and woman who would become a target of the Christian anger that grew over the feud. Daughter of Theon, and a teacher trained in the philosophical schools of Plato and Plotinus, she was admired by most men for her dignity and virtue. Of the anger she provoked among Christians, Scholasticus writes, Hypatia ultimately fell "victim to the political jealousy which at the time prevailed" - Orestes was known to seek her counsel, and a rumor spread among the Christian community of Alexandria in which she was blamed for his unwillingness to reconcile with Cyril.

Hypatia was brutally murdered in the streets of Alexandria.
 

Shan D. (49)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 9:09 am
"Really? Does this mean you don't believe point #1?

1. there is no god(s)" (Alexa R.)

Thank you for pointing out something I overlooked in your ridiculously long list of nonsense. Humans invented gods. I have never seen any objective evidence that any of them actually exist(ed).
---
"12. being atheist means one makes up one's own belief system (oxymoron as i thought another of their beliefs is that they don't have a belief system ..)" (Alexa R.)

This is nonsense. You are confusing beliefs with morals and ethics.
---
"15. being atheist means someone is unique, unlike religious peoples" (Alexa R.)

Where do you get this nonsense? Every human, and most other lifeforms as well, is unique.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 9:52 am
Shan my incomplete list of 15 beliefs of a typical atheist do not contain morals nor ethics. Can you explain how you consider them such? They are purely beliefs.. A subset of a typical atheist belief system.

Glad to hear you do not hold typical atheist belief #15. I agree, we're all unique, also animals, other life forms.
 

Shan D. (49)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 10:07 am
"Shan my incomplete list of 15 beliefs of a typical atheist do not contain morals nor ethics. Can you explain how you consider them such? They are purely beliefs.. A subset of a typical atheist belief system." (Alexa R.)

You're still confused. Take the Ten Commandments as an example. Consider the one that says "Thou shall not commit adultery." I happen to consider that one to be morally and ethically important, because any married individual who cheats on his/her spouse is violating a promise. They are breaking their word of honor. It has nothing to do with religion, to me. It's why I consider my given word of honor to be much more binding on my conscience than any silliness of swearing on a book. Many people have sworn on a "holy book" and then lied.

I don't need "holy bribes" or threats of eternal damnation to live an honorable, moral, and ethical life. I just need my own conscience and sense of justice.
 

Kit B. (276)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 11:22 am

Geesh, Alexandra or Alexa -- whatever name you are using now. You haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. No one can convert you to a choice of thinking, no one can convert you to an intellectual and science based view of life. We do not cling to a belief system. End of story, the intellectual decision to step away from the hocus - pocus can not be related to those who want that. You want to believe in a god, good for you. Do not attempt to define others by your choice. We do not convert people, we live by our individual choices, we do not all know each other, we do not all think alike and we could care less what others want to believe.
 

Kit B. (276)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 11:23 am

Morality is a personal code of conduct. It has nothing to do with religion.
 

Kit B. (276)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 11:30 am

Science is used to build an evidence-based belief system, under the premise that the world is ultimately understandable through observation, experiment, and prediction. The key element of science, is recognition that humans possess individual beliefs, and consequently are capable of introducing bias in their interpretation of the world. As a result, science attempts to mitigate against such bias by requiring strict definitions of terms and conditions, as well as demanding that any evidence be capable of independent verification by others. This ensures that accepted results have been subjected to trials that may also be subject to bias, but by strict adherence to procedure, such biases will cancel each other out and product conclusions that are largely objective.

Faith-based belief systems are mental constructs that lack evidence. This isn't to disparage them or to diminish their value, but rather to define an important difference. In short, a faith-based belief system is unequivocally based on the lack of evidence or evidence which may be impossible to collect.

 

pam w. (191)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 12:01 pm
Alex (my friend) as a nearly lifelong atheist, I've never beaten up your beliefs....so we're certainly NOT all evangelical. (That's a joke, by the way.)

The ONLY time I'll challenge a believer is here at Care2, when they write nonsensical pap or spout verses of scripture or challenge my rights to privacy because it conflicts with THEIR religion.

I've said this before....I'm delighted to live in times when so MANY of us are "coming out" as atheists. There absolutely WILL be more of us as people gain courage and Christians fall away from belief. Do I believe the entire world will someday be atheistic? I'd like to think so but I don't believe that because there's a real NEED in humans to feel cared for by a magical being who listens to their prayers and sometimes changes the entire plan for the universe...just to suit THEM! ("Yes, thousands died in the hurricane but I prayed and was saved.")

Kit's absolutely right...''faith'' demands incredulity...it demands magic and it demands mystical explanations for events and reality which science tackles with evidence, instead of dogma.
 

Carrie B. (309)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 12:04 pm
I believe in God, I believe in the right to not believe in God, and I don't believe that any amount of arguing is ever going to change a person's belief or no belief. Personally, I like the idea of people being allowed to make their own spiritual choices without being criticized or harassed. Run naked through the forest and worship the trees if it is fulfilling~I don't care!
 

pam w. (191)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 12:05 pm
AMEN, Carrie!
 

Yvonne White (232)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 2:36 pm
Seems like much ado about nothing.. I've always suspected it matters more if a "God" believes in us rather than if we believe in "it"..But since this thread is all over the place I might as well toss in a plug for Terry Pratchett's "Small Gods" Discworld novel!:)
 

Dot A. (133)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 4:36 pm
Yvonne's enlightened post:
indeed
much ado about not a thing
~~~
dispersion of thought
perhaps that will conquer
[divide and create disharmony, - it's all been done before,... ]
 

Kit B. (276)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 5:50 pm

I had thought this was a discussion about whether or not the feminine voice is heard within atheism. So soon these threads deteriorate and there is little chance of reviving them.

I thought, Carrie that is what I said, no one cares if one believes in god or make the life choice to not believe. I have seen many discussions on Care2 about religion. I have yet to see one person tell another the only true path is to follow the atheist. Atheist just do not attempt proselytization, it makes no sense. It's not a religion nor a club. Though I have seen many that either condemn or warn that the only path is through Jesus or burn in hell. Now I ask you, is that nice?

 

Tom Edgar (56)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 6:00 pm
Alexa.,.,. I don't know where you dug up your 15 "Beliefs" and it is of, relatively, little importance. Only people such as you claim atheists have NO beliefs atheists do not claim this to be so. I believe, on prevailing evidence, that tomorrow the sun will appear & disappear over the horizon. on past performances the Pope will still forgive Paedophile Priests, a firm stand against homosexuality, and abortions, there are many others. The only thing in which we have NO belief is the existence of Gods which we will be willing to change if evidence to the contrary is produced.. How you cannot see the difference between NOT believing in the existence of Gods and BELIEVING that Gods do not exist is beyond my understanding. You must have gone to a peculiar University tutorial.

So Zala As you announced you have indisputable evidence for the existence of one particular Deity (Please nominate which one it is) please produce it. You will be the first. Oh I remember now, in an apparent fit of pique, you said you weren't going to produce this wonderful information and would keep it just for yourself.

I've no doubt some fervent believer will, at some time in the future, do exactly the same. I have had honest Pastors and Priests tell me that it is impossible to produce material evidence to support their strongly held beliefs. As one Priest (defrocked) said when questioned why he did not become an atheist if he didn't believe in total submission to the Catholic Church any more. "You can take the boy out of the Church but not the Church out of the boy."
 

Yvonne White (232)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 6:08 pm
I like the yin & yang thing - we are god & devil, good & evil, sublime & ridiculous..I am the egg man, I am the walrus..coo-coo-cachoo!:)
 

Carrie B. (309)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 6:22 pm
Kit, no it is not nice for those who claim to be of strong belief to tell atheists or anyone he or she is going to hell. I certainly don't feel that to be true~how a person lives his life is what is important~not whether or not he worships at an altar or worships at all.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 11:00 pm
Tom Edgar (49)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 6:00 pm
Alexa.,.,. How you cannot see the difference between NOT believing in the existence of Gods and BELIEVING that Gods do not exist is beyond my understanding. You must have gone to a peculiar University tutorial.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To repeat myself it has nothing to do with my university but all to do with my dictionary, as well as an online definition on atheism says (I hope this is not beyond your understanding too):
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. a•the•ist (ˈeɪ θi ɪst) n. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.


 

Alexa R. (333)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 11:01 pm
Kit B. (333)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 5:50 pm

I have yet to see one person tell another the only true path is to follow the atheist.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To repeat myself: Alexa R. (327)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 1:24 pm
PS. I've even had some of these atheist extremist threatening me [even here on care2] with "eventually every person on the earth will be an atheist, why not convert now willingly, why wait until you're forced to convert?
 

Alexa R. (333)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 11:13 pm
pam w. (185)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 12:01 pm
Alex (my friend) as a nearly lifelong atheist, I've never beaten up your beliefs....so we're certainly NOT all evangelical. (That's a joke, by the way.)

Kit's absolutely right...''faith'' demands incredulity...it demands magic and it demands mystical explanations for events and reality which science tackles with evidence, instead of dogma.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pam (my friend) - if you've never beaten up my beliefs, you sure have now with the above sentence. The above sentence is a load of rubbish: "faith" does not demand incredulity, mystical explanations, magic ..

It demands logic, reason, science, evidence, a sound mind. If you or anyone else on this thread are interested, I would be willing to explain, show you how logical and evidence based it is, how it is full of science, reason and a sound mind.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 11:40 pm
Alexa R. (327)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 1:42 am
Tom, and how is -------denying the existence of a god------- not a belief? What is your reasoning?

I hope you're not expecting me to simply 'take your word for it'?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to my dictionary, as well as an online definition of atheism says:
One who disbelieves or ------denies the existence of God or gods------. a•the•ist (ˈeɪ θi ɪst) n. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So I take it your answer to my question is that denying the existence of a god IS a belief? If, so. Thank you. Good to know there are some atheists, like yourself who can recognise that denying the existence of a god IS a belief.

Tom Edgar (49)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 6:00 pm
Alexa.,.,. Only people such as you claim atheists have NO beliefs atheists do not claim this to be so. I believe, on prevailing evidence, that tomorrow the sun will appear & disappear over the horizon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where did I supposedly claim that atheists have NO beliefs? My whole argument was that atheists, like the rest of us religiosos do have beliefs, a belief system. I was refuting an atheist, Susan's claim(many atheists do claim to have a total lack of belief - here is one even on this thread):

Susan E. (7)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 2:49 pm
The writer seems to miss the point that being an atheist simply means a lack of belief.


 

Susanne R. (249)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 12:00 am
Everyone is born without an awareness of God, so we were all atheists at one point in our lives. And, as far as I know, children don't experience a sudden revelation or awakening. The concept of God is taught to them. Considering the way women are treated, they have good reason to doubt the existence of God because of the way men have used God to keep women subservient.

 

Shan D. (49)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 12:06 am
"Pam (my friend) - if you've never beaten up my beliefs, you sure have now with the above sentence. The above sentence is a load of rubbish: "faith" does not demand incredulity, mystical explanations, magic ..

It demands logic, reason, science, evidence, a sound mind. If you or anyone else on this thread are interested, I would be willing to explain, show you how logical and evidence based it is, how it is full of science, reason and a sound mind." (Alexa R.)

Pam did not "beat up" your beliefs. She simply disagreed with them. As for your logic and evidence and science - bring it on. This is something I'd love to see, considering that there are at least two of us in this thread who have studied anthropology and history. I'm unfamiliar with what Kit may know about astronomy and cosmology, but you are welcome to try me on that as well, as your "evidence" would have to touch on all those disciplines, and a lot more besides.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 2:00 am
See. what I mean. There is no reasoning with an atheist. They have no ears to hear anything but their own denials.

Christians are pretty much the same way.

I have said before and I say again, Religion is a barrier to relationship. Religion is man made.

I have sought the truth my life long and I have found a being of so much love and power and beauty. He really doesn't care if you believe in him/her/it or not. He's not going to send anybody to "hell". That would be to destroy his own creation.

God is LOVE.

This Creative, Intelligent, Energy is not threatened by un belief or controlled by belief. Energy just is, ever present and ever creative and ever love.

But each in his own time.

This energy is never in a hurry.

This creative energy is not concerned with religion.

If we choose to plug in to this energy that is ok.

If we choose not to plug in to this energy that is ok.

I AM
I HAVE BEEN
I WILL BE

If you don't want to connect, that's ok.

If and when you choose to connect,
you will find that GOD IS LOVE.
 

Shan D. (49)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 2:11 am
Zee, I do hope it's not me you're referring to when you say "there's no reasoning with an atheist." I am always prepared to be reasoned with - as long as the reasons include verifiable evidence. Alexa claims to have evidence, and I am merely inviting her to present it.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 4:13 am
Susanne, that's another wrong and unsubstantiated belief often held by atheists. (I hope this is enough reasoned, scientific evidence for went Shan, without trying to write a whole thesis on a thread.)

Research and scientific study clearly shows that babies are NOT born without an awareness of God. In other words are not born atheists as you claim Susanne.

But are born agnostic. That means they have no opinion as to whether there is or is not a god. In order to have an opinion, they would have to have a concept of what a god is, which they do not have. So babies are indeed born without beliefs, thus also without a belief or disbelief in god = agnostic (god may or may not exist).

From that state a baby starts to build up beliefs, some through simply accepting what he/she is being told, if told atheist beliefs, those are accepted, if taught religious beliefs those are accepted.

A small percentage of youngsters breaks free and accept a different set of beliefs to what either their family or culture/society taught them.

There are as many that were brought up atheist that become religious as the other way round.

Those breaking free are often taking on the beliefs of peers. Therefore history has shown culture wide relivals as well as culture wide selections of religion and of different religion to the norm for that particular society. Eg. Welsh revival to Christianity, Russian rejection of all religion.


 

Alexa R. (333)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 4:17 am
oops, sorry 'selections of religion'

Should read

Rejections of religion
 

Helen Porter (40)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 5:42 am
I don't think the doctors would allow you to look at my records of healing, diabetes, inside tooth decay, neuropathy with almost unbearable pain, psychological problems, poverty, alienation from daughter, and more all before I got in relationship with my Higher Power.

After, healings of all the above mentioned according to second opinions and x rays (proof) promotion at work, reconciliation with daughter, plenty of money, happiness, Care2, a life that I love.

I'm 70. I like to get a yearly physical exam. Doctor's amazed at my health. Last exam doctor said, "I don't mess with perfection,"

Prayers answered quickly. One newborn was going to have to have a heart operation next day. Mother came to me. We prayed. The doctors couldn't understand it but the baby's heart was fine and did not need an operation.

His presence is with me all the time. He answers my prayers from little things such as I lost my keys. I went back to the store. Not there. Coming home I talked to YAH about my problem. My keys fell at my feet! This is the pattern of my life.

I know you won't believe me but if it happened to you, like it happens to me and keeps on happening, if you're determined to be an atheist you still wouldn't believe in Creator. Well, I do. lol

Answers to my prayers for myself and those close to me are more reliable than my electricity working.
God is intelligent energy.

I like what I've got and I'm going to keep it.

So there!!!
 

Dot A. (133)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 7:08 am
there is so much emotion here
surely that is indicative of 'something'
our emotions create in us a compelling response
to 'something' of which we care
care
is acted upon with attention, anxiety or solicitude
from which we could extrapolate
a heavenly environment
or a hellish one
of which we choose daily
and with hope choose wisely
[for those who have a sense that there more to reality than our human eyes may hold, this process extends beyond what is visible in the mundane experience of life]
we make our own heaven
we linger in our own hell
the miracle of life is not explained to anyone
yet we are alive
being grateful assists us in embracing the greater good
and acting for the greater good
making life a better experience for as many as possible
* this debate has veered to and fro / as to whether or not
there is a greater power
whether or not women are subjugated
whether or not a particular concept should rule humanity
etc., etc., etc.,
each one will find their own truth
each one will act according to their own beliefs
and each one affects our world
our actions reveal what how we feel
judgments are useless
for we cannot know all factors in another person's life
living as best we can
doing what we believe to be for the best
and continuing to reach higher levels of what can be
will help us all
denigrating one another is rarely useful
yet some enjoy such sport (it seems)
women and men are each valuable
our beliefs are personal
our actions effect the world
i pray that we 'act' with care
love is a power that lives on
both women and men have it
LOVE2CARE, dot
 

Helen Porter (40)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 8:00 am
Dot,

Your beautiful poetry transcends
both worthy sides of issues
beyond understanding.
Each to his own.
Each in his own time.
Infinity is never in a hurry.
 

Susanne R. (249)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 9:37 am
Just to set the record straight, Alexa, I'm neither an atheist nor an agnostic. I was baptized a Roman Catholic but, because I can no longer tolerate the scandals within the Catholic Church and because of the abuse I both witnessed and suffered during my 12 years of Catholic education, I've left the Catholic Church behind me, I'm still a Christian and am very comfortable with my faith.

Please consider this from Wikipedia:

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[41] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[42] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".[43]"

Personally, I have little interest in debating this subject. Everyone should have the right to believe what their heart tells them to. The worst hatred and cruelty I've observed in this world has been fueled by religion. I don't believe that was God's plan --no matter how you define Him.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 10:02 pm
Susanne R. (208)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 9:37 am

Personally, I have little interest in debating this subject. Everyone should have the right to believe what their heart tells them to. The worst hatred and cruelty I've observed in this world has been fueled by religion. I don't believe that was God's plan --no matter how you define Him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since you've little interest in debating the subject, I won't debate with you. Since you expressed your beliefs, I will do equally and express mine:

I disbelieve your statement above. I've seen and history proves that as much hatred fueled by non-religious persons as by people claiming to be religious. There is nothing magical about being atheist. Human nature is human nature, simply being an atheist does not "save" humans from human nature eg cruelty.

Sadly, a percentage of humans (all humans, whether religious or non-religious) chooses to develop the cruel parts of their human nature and uses a variety of excuses for their cruelty (in other words, religion is not the only excuse used for cruelty). Sadly, it is often a case of the worse the cruelty the bigger the excuse or justification.

 

Shan D. (49)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 10:52 pm
"There is nothing magical about being atheist. Human nature is human nature, simply being an atheist does not "save" humans from human nature eg cruelty.

Sadly, a percentage of humans (all humans, whether religious or non-religious) chooses to develop the cruel parts of their human nature and uses a variety of excuses for their cruelty (in other words, religion is not the only excuse used for cruelty). Sadly, it is often a case of the worse the cruelty the bigger the excuse or justification." (Alexa R.)

Bingo! Indeed there is nothing magical about being atheist. And human nature is all too often cruel and selfish. The difference that applies to this discussion is that an atheist who chooses to behave cruelly will not claim he/she is doing it in the name of religion (whichever one it is), and that some religious figure said it's okay to be cruel.

The Bible and Koran are full of instances where religious figures and authorities say that some cruel action is okay, even sometimes required for proper worship. That's a concept that atheists simply cannot wrap our minds around because it's so hypocritical.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Friday July 26, 2013, 3:50 am
If you choose to check out Tent Maker site, where the history of Christianity is exposed, you will read that hell was a pagan concept adopted by the church to control the people with fear. The translators took words that DID NOT MEAN either hell or eternal punishment and twisted the verses to scare the people. The more modern translations are using the word hell less and less,

But I do believe in hell. We're in it. Planet Earth, not of her own will, has become the setting. Humans are the demons. The forces of evil that are unleashed against us are surely worthy of the term "hell". But it's not eternal. Either we activists are going to win the victory over our planet or our planet will be destroyed from the looks of things. So it certainly is not going to be eternal.

I want to believe that we are going to win.

I like to believe that, as we win, men will become sane and we will make hell into a paradise.

I am grateful to everyone of you, whether or not we agree (we don't have to agree) I want to thank you for all you are doing to transform "hell" into Paradise.

When I tell people about Care2, and that is most often, people are waking up and they're afraid of what is happening to our planet, when I tell them about us I like to say, "We're atheists and Christians working side by side to save our planet for our children and our grand children. We work side by side."

Except for sometimes! lol

(((HUGS))) to all of you, Christians, Atheists, Pagans, other religions and people like me who just don't fit into any organized religion.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Friday July 26, 2013, 9:09 am
Shan D. (33)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 10:52 pm
Bingo! Indeed there is nothing magical about being atheist. And human nature is all too often cruel and selfish. The difference that applies to this discussion is that an atheist who chooses to behave cruelly will not claim he/she is doing it in the name of religion (whichever one it is), and that some religious figure said it's okay to be cruel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Atheists may not give religious belief as their excuse for cruelty, but they most often give "reason and logic" as the justification for their cruelty, or "stamping out religion" as their justification for cruelty. I would not certainly not say that one excuse or justification is better or worse than another!?!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shan: "some religious figure said it's okay to be cruel. "

Can you back up your claim with more than a handful of examples of religious figures that said it's okay to be cruel? (I can provide you on request with much more than a handful of atheists, even prominent atheist figures that said/says it's okay to be cruel.)

 

Shan D. (49)
Friday July 26, 2013, 9:52 am
FFS, Alexa! I'd have to cite half the Old Testament and a significant amount of the New Testament! How about we start with GOD? From Genesis to Pope Benedict, Christianity is chock full of religious authority figures who think cruelty is just fine and dandy. Let's see YOUR evidence you keep blathering about!
 

Alexa R. (333)
Friday July 26, 2013, 1:10 pm
Shan D. (33)
Friday July 26, 2013, 9:52 am
FFS, Alexa!... Let's see YOUR evidence you keep blathering about!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't see any evidence just sweeping statements from you, that happen to be false - unsubstantiated. Please play fair. Evidence for evidence. Not sweeping statements from you and then you expect evidence from me ..
 

Shan D. (49)
Friday July 26, 2013, 2:36 pm
You want chapter and verse, is that it? Let's start with how God thinks it's fine for women to experience pain in childbirth. Then how about all the innocent people and animals who would have died in the Flood (no, Noah did not take all of them on the Ark). Personally, I find a directive from God to kill ANY child, let alone my firstborn son, to be cruel.

That's three examples. Now let's see yours.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Friday July 26, 2013, 10:38 pm
Certainly......you said,
FFS, Alexa! I'd have to cite half the Old Testament and a significant amount of the New Testament! How about we start with GOD?



How about we CONTINUE with GOD?



There is a difference between God and the corrupted scriptures.....corrupted by the money/power people even in Old Testament Times. Constantine was not the only one to ''make the scriptures of no effect.'' Those writings in the original were dangerous. They talked about taking care of the poor, having mercy on the sick and helpless and people being the guardians of the animals. Dominion meant to care for NOT to abuse. The original scriptures threatened the STOP of power and domination of the people. They threatened LOVE.



Here's what scripture says about itself. I'm afraid I'm going to shock the placid Christians who don't really want to know the truth but only what they are fed. Truth requires thinking requires sincerity requires work to uncover. It requires seeking the person "God" with your whole heart and not in order to impress the brain washed teachers in Sunday School class.


Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?"
But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

Isaiah 1:11-13 What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts. Who requires of you this trampling of my courts?
Bring no more vain offerings............................

Mark 7:13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on.


Therefore I say the man mangled scriptures even in old testament times and Creator are not the same. Even though I know this I do find much wisdom in Bible though it's usually lacquered over. As scripture itself says, "The letter killeth but the spirit maketh alive."


I suggest that the subject not be changed but that you get back to the discussion of "Creator".


Why did Creator allow the scriptures to be corrupted. I think he didn't want the Bible to be worshiped as a golden calf. Of course, after being appropriately corrupted to control the people and get their money, the church considered it fit to be worshiped. Just don't question?


Certainly don't go to Creator to ask your questions. Ask us that we may add another layer of lacquer to your brain.


You aren't going to get to know that there is a Creator and that he loves you by arguing the matter. He/She/It really doesn't care if you believe or don't believe. He's above all that. Each in his own time as the creature chooses. That's the philosophy he has instructed me. He loves his atheists. So do I. He's willing to let us make our own heaven or our own hell. Either is the results of our own creative ability in which He/She/It delights.


Punishment is usually allowing us to do what we want to do until we're screaming for help. (That's what I did.) Then he will probably reach out a hand to help. Help is defined as two people working, Yes, I think God is a people. He created us in his own image. And I find he's very much a people.....more evolved. lol


Creator doesn't want puppets. He wants companions. He/She/It isn't going to control, Man does that. What's it all about. It's all about love.


And no, Creator is not worse than Hitler. He's not going to send anyone to hell. He'll pretty much let us do what we want. If we want him, fine. If we don't, ok.


He wants companions who can love and be loved freely.


Look at how Job talked about him. In the end he told Job he was right and he blessed Job more than Job had ever dreamed.


But each individual in each individual's own time.


So be it,

Amen


p.s. Man has tried to put his own illusions on Creator. Humans want a "god" who is their idea of perfect, who never makes mistakes, well, that's NOT what Creator says about himself.


I sincerely believe that eventually, as we continue to evolve, we will also be Creators. Even now he wants us to be co-creators with Him/Her/It. Indeed, we may create our own worlds some day. But, for now, we'd better work on saving THIS planet.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Friday July 26, 2013, 11:09 pm

Certainly......you said,
FFS, Alexa! I'd have to cite half the Old Testament and a significant amount of the New Testament! How about we start with GOD?

How about we CONTINUE with GOD?

There is a difference between God and the corrupted scriptures.....corrupted by the money/power people even in Old Testament Times. Constantine was not the only one to ''make the scriptures of no effect.'' Those writings in the original were dangerous. They talked about taking care of the poor, having mercy on the sick and helpless and people being the guardians of the animals. Dominion meant to care for NOT to abuse. The original scriptures threatened the STOP of power and domination of the people. They threatened LOVE.

Here's what scripture says about itself. I'm afraid I'm going to shock the placid Christians who don't really want to know the truth but only what they are fed. Truth requires thinking requires sincerity requires work to uncover. It requires seeking the person "God" with your whole heart and not in order to impress the brain washed teachers in Sunday School class.

Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?"
But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

Isaiah 1:11-13 What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts. Who requires of you this trampling of my courts?
Bring no more vain offerings............................

Mark 7:13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on.

Therefore I say the man mangled scriptures even in old testament times and Creator are not the same. Even though I know this I do find much wisdom in Bible though it's usually lacquered over. As scripture itself says, "The letter killeth but the spirit maketh alive."

I suggest that the subject not be changed but that you get back to the discussion of "Creator".

Why did Creator allow the scriptures to be corrupted. I think he didn't want the Bible to be worshiped as a golden calf. Of course, after being appropriately corrupted to control the people and get their money, the church considered it fit to be worshiped. Just don't question?

Certainly don't go to Creator to ask your questions. Ask us that we may add another layer of lacquer to your brain.

You aren't going to get to know that there is a Creator and that he loves you by arguing the matter. He/She/It really doesn't care if you believe or don't believe. He's above all that. Each in his own time as the creature chooses. That's the philosophy he has instructed me. He loves his atheists. So do I. He's willing to let us make our own heaven or our own hell. Either is the results of our own creative ability in which He/She/It delights.

Punishment is usually allowing us to do what we want to do until we're screaming for help. (That's what I did.) Then he will probably reach out a hand to help. Help is defined as two people working, Yes, I think God is a people. He created us in his own image. And I find he's very much a people.....more evolved. lol

Creator doesn't want puppets. He wants companions. He/She/It isn't going to control, Man does that. What's it all about. It's all about love.

And no, Creator is not worse than Hitler. He's not going to send anyone to hell. He'll pretty much let us do what we want. If we want him, fine. If we don't, ok.

He wants companions who can love and be loved freely.

Look at how bluntly Job talked about him. In the end he told Job he was right and he blessed Job more than Job had ever dreamed.

But each individual in each individual's own time.

Man has tried to put his own illusions on Creator. Humans want a "god" who is their idea of perfect, who never makes mistakes, well, that's NOT what Creator says about himself.

I sincerely believe that eventually, as we continue to evolve, we will also be Creators. Even now he wants us to be co-creators with Him/Her/It. Indeed, we may create our own worlds some day. But, for now, we'd better work on saving THIS planet.
 

Beth M. (46)
Friday July 26, 2013, 11:15 pm
..zee kallah is the evidence...x
 

Helen Porter (40)
Friday July 26, 2013, 11:35 pm
Certainly......you said,
FFS, Alexa! I'd have to cite half the Old Testament and a significant amount of the New Testament! How about we start with GOD?

How about we CONTINUE with GOD?

There is a difference between God and the corrupted scriptures.....corrupted by the money/power people even in Old Testament Times. Constantine was not the only one to ''make the scriptures of no effect.'' Those writings in the original were dangerous. They talked about taking care of the poor, having mercy on the sick and helpless and people being the guardians of the animals. Dominion meant to care for NOT to abuse. The original scriptures threatened the STOP of power and domination of the people. They threatened LOVE.

Here's what scripture says about itself. I'm afraid I'm going to shock the placid Christians who don't really want to know the truth but only what they are fed. Truth requires thinking requires sincerity requires work to uncover. It requires seeking the person "God" with your whole heart and not in order to impress the brain washed teachers in Sunday School class.

Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, "We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?"
But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

Isaiah 1:11-13 What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts. Who requires of you this trampling of my courts?
Bring no more vain offerings............................

Mark 7:13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on.

Therefore I say the man mangled scriptures even in old testament times and Creator are not the same. Even though I know this I do find much wisdom in Bible though it's usually lacquered over. As scripture itself says, "The letter killeth but the spirit maketh alive."

I suggest that the subject not be changed but that you get back to the discussion of "Creator".

Why did Creator allow the scriptures to be corrupted. I think he didn't want the Bible to be worshiped as a golden calf. Of course, after being appropriately corrupted to control the people and get their money, the church considered it fit to be worshiped. Just don't question?

Certainly don't go to Creator to ask your questions. Ask us that we may add another layer of lacquer to your brain.

You aren't going to get to know that there is a Creator and that he loves you by arguing the matter. He/She/It really doesn't care if you believe or don't believe. He's above all that. Each in his own time as the creature chooses. That's the philosophy he has instructed me. He loves his atheists. So do I. He's willing to let us make our own heaven or our own hell. Either is the results of our own creative ability in which He/She/It delights.

Punishment is usually allowing us to do what we want to do until we're screaming for help. (That's what I did.) Then he will probably reach out a hand to help. Help is defined as two people working, Yes, I think God is a people. He created us in his own image. And I find he's very much a people.....more evolved. lol

Creator doesn't want puppets. He wants companions. He/She/It isn't going to control, Man does that. What's it all about. It's all about love.

And no, Creator is not worse than Hitler. He's not going to send anyone to hell. He'll pretty much let us do what we want. If we want him, fine. If we don't, ok.

He wants companions who can love and be loved freely.

Look at how bluntly Job talked about him. In the end he told Job he was right and he blessed Job more than Job had ever dreamed.

But each individual in each individual's own time.

Man has tried to put his own illusions on Creator. Humans want a "god" who is their idea of perfect, who never makes mistakes, well, that's NOT what Creator says about himself.

I sincerely believe that eventually, as we continue to evolve, we will also be Creators. Even now he wants us to be co-creators with Him/Her/It. Indeed, we may create our own worlds some day. But, for now, we'd better work on saving THIS planet.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Friday July 26, 2013, 11:38 pm
I apologize for the many repeats of this comment.

I don't know what's going on.

It keeps disappearing and then comes back and then disappears

Now, I just put this in the hands of my Creator.

If it disappears again, I won't try to replace it.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 11:47 am
Shan:
It is almost superfluous for me to answer you as well since Zee gave you such a well-reasoned and logical response on what she believes flowing from a heart of love, but since I promised that I’ll match evidence with evidence, I’ll do so.

(BTW, I’m coming to the conclusion on this thread that you’re not someone to be taken at your word: first you said that you disbelieve all of the rest of my 15 atheist beliefs, then you’ve gone back on your word and said you do believe the first atheist belief on my list. Then you said you’ll give me evidence, but gave me sweeping statements and I had to insist on you keeping your word, then you said you’ll give me more than a handful, but you gave only 3, then you said you’ll give me evidence in the form of religious people who said it is okay to be cruel, but you gave not even one example of a religious person that said it’s okay to be cruel, I just got more sweeping statements of how God and the Bible approves cruelty (btw God is not a person).

Never mind, since I’m not an atheist as a typical atheist would have shouted in your face by now ”liar liar pants on fire” – I do realise that not every person, whether religious or atheist always mean what they say. And since I know this now about you, I’ll simply make sure I double check and verify anything you say, just in case it was something you said randomly without actually meaning it.)

My evidences (more than a handful) to follow in my next comment.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 12:02 pm
Since you gave as an example something from the Bible rather than a specific religious person’s cruel interpretation of a particular verse or verses from the Bible while ignoring any other religious person’s non-cruel interpretation of those same verses, I’ll do the same:

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase originating in evolutionary theory, as an alternative description of natural selection. The phrase is today commonly used in contexts that are incompatible with the original meaning as intended by its first two proponents: British polymath philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles Darwin.

Herbert Spencer first used the phrase – after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species – in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing, "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]

Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape".[4] Hence, it is not a scientific description.[5]

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. Inpopulation genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.[6]

An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the "physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7]

survival of the fittest

There are many an atheist who still believes in these writings as scientific fact, even though thoroughly and scientifically proven to be false since (there is no evidence in nature of "survival of the fittest" - a very cruel concept - one that approves cruelty)and that have been used as their justification and reason for cruelty towards others both human and animal by many an atheist.

However, unlike you Shan, I do realise that just the same as with Biblical interpretation, where two people whether religious or not can interpret the same verse as justification for cruelty or not, so too can any person whether religious or not interpret or use this concept/words/writings of Darwin "survival of the fittest" in cruel or non cruel ways and use their belief in these words as justification for cruelty or not.

I know very few, if any religious person who has used the Bible to justify cruelty or killing. Most religious persons know the Bible promotes love of God, self and neighbour. All I've ever encountered is atheists, many having not even read the Bible or much, but willfully misinterpreting the words contained in it to justify their choice of not wishing to believe in it or believing in God.

As Zee so eloquently said, if religious persons or the Bible was perfect (btw nothing on this Earth is perfect, not even atheists or atheist beliefs/writings) then we as humans would not have had a choice whether to believe in God or not. God allows imperfection, even of the Bible so as to give each of us enough "justification" were we to wish to reject the Bible and God.

Similarly, God gave enough imperfection within atheist beliefs so people like me and Zee have enough justification to choose not to believe or take on atheist beliefs.

More examples of atheist people who promotes cruelty to follow ..

 

Shan D. (49)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 12:06 pm
Alexa, I have not called you a liar. YOU are the one who makes sweeping statements, dear. You keep blathering about "typical" atheists, as though you know a lot of us. If you actually did, you wouldn't make such ridiculous comments.

I said I overlooked the point on your list. Not noticing something is not the same as disbelieving it. Reading comprehension: you should try it sometime.

I'm just getting started about cruelty and religious figures. BTW, I did mention Pope Benedict. He's the one who chided a group of nuns for not being nasty enough to gays, and instead focused their efforts on helping people. That is an example of a religious authority saying it's okay to be cruel.
 

Shan D. (49)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 12:13 pm
"Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape".[4] Hence, it is not a scientific description.[5]" (Alexa R.)

Ohboy. First, understand this: I did not see Zee's posts, so did not reply to them.

Secondly: adaptation IS a fundamental part of evolutionary biology. Adaptation is why humans exist as we are today - because our ancestors were able to successfully adapt to whatever environment they were in.

Thirdly, nature itself is neither cruel nor kind. Nature simply IS.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 12:27 pm
Here is 6, I can provide more if you so wish/request Shan:

Robert Mugabe:
He adopted Marxist and Maoist views and received arms and training from Asia and Eastern Europe. In 1982 Mugabe sent his North Korean-trained Fifth Brigade to the ZAPU stronghold of Matabeleland to smash dissent among ethnic, racial or religious groups with the intent to destroy it. Over five years, 20,000 Ndebele civilians were killed as part of a campaign of alleged political genocide. In 1987 Mugabe switched tactics, inviting ZAPU to be merged with the ruling ZANU-PF and creating a de facto one-party authoritarian state with himself as the ruling president.

Idi Amin
In 1971, General Idi Amin overthrew the elected government of Milton Obote and declared himself president of Uganda, launching a ruthless eight-year regime in which an estimated 300,000 civilians were massacred. His expulsion of all Indian and Pakistani citizens in 1972—along with increasing military expenditures—brought about the country’s economic decline, the impact of which lasted decades. In 1979 his reign of terror came to an end as Ugandan exiles and Tanzanians took control of the capital of Kampala, forcing Amin to flee. Never brought to justice for his heinous crimes, Amin lived out the remainder of his life in Saudi Arabia.

Genghis Khan: “the supreme warrior”
(Founder and ruler of the Mongol Empire from 1206 till 1227)
A Mongol legend says that Genghis Khan was born with a blood clot grasped in his fist – a sign that he was destined to become a great leader. The omen proved true, as the boy grew into the outstanding warrior of the 13th century who managed to forge the largest contiguous empire in history. Born Temujin, he experienced poverty, persecution and imprisonment after the death of his father, a tribal chief. But he rode the storm and his military genius helped him defeat rival tribes one by one. By 1206, he had become the ruler of almost all of Mongolia. It was then that Temujin was pronounced Genghis Khan – the king of kings.
Under his command, the Mongols swept through China, Central Asia and across Eastern Europe. By the time of Genghis Khan's death, his empire extended across Asia, from the Pacific Ocean to the Black Sea, and his descendants maintained power in the region for hundreds of years. Genghis Khan’s military conquests were often characterized by the utmost cruelty and wholesale slaughter of the defeated.
At the same time, he proved himself an admirable statesman, having managed to unite and organize the Mongols and introduce civilian and military codes. And though violations were severely punished, to the present day the Mongol people recognize Khan as a great reformer.

Joseph Stalin: “the Father of Nations”
(General Secretary of the Soviet Union from 1922 till 1953)
A politician who walked over the dead bodies of both his associates and rivals on his way to power, Joseph Stalin was also a ruler who achieved an almost unprecedented economic miracle of modern times, having made a great industrial and military power out of a dilapidated and mostly agrarian country. “He found Russia working with wooden plows and left it equipped with atomic piles,” Sir Winston Churchill is believed to have said about him.
It was under Stalin that the Soviet Union won the Great Patriotic War against Nazi Germany in 1945, thus making USSR’s contribution to defeating the Axis in World War Two hard to overestimate. And it was under Stalin, as well, that the Soviet people suffered the hardly bearable strains of collectivization and industrialization, the mass famine of the 30s, the notorious Purges and the creation of the gulag system that, according to different estimates, 14 to 40 million Soviet citizens went through – with many not surviving.

Maximilien de Robespierre
He was on born May 6, 1758, in Arras, France. He was a radical Jacobin leader and one of the principal figures in the French Revolution. In the latter months of 1793 he came to dominate the Committee of Public Safety, the principal organ of the Revolutionary government during the Reign of Terror, but in 1794 he was overthrown and guillotined.
Robespierre soon took on a public role, calling for political change in the French monarchy. He became a devotee of social philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, intrigued by the idea of a virtuous man who stands alone accompanied only by his conscience. He gained a reputation for defending the poorest of society and earned the nickname "the incorruptible" for his adherence to strict moral values.

Pol Pot: “Brother Number One”
(Ruler of Democratic Kampuchea, now Cambodia, from 1975 till 1979)
Saloth Sar, aka Pol Pot was an unusual dictator who had neither a personality cult nor was appropriating the assets of his persecuted opponents. Instead, he focused on destroying his own people. During the four years of the Khmer Rouge party regime in Democratic Kampuchea, about three million people – a fourth part of the country's population – were brutally wiped out.
Pol Pot imposed a version of agrarian collectivization, forcing city dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work at collective farms and forced labor projects. The Khmer Rouge targeted everyone considered “potentially dangerous”, which included the military, specialists of all kinds, including teachers and doctors, officials and educated people in general. Both education and religion were abolished. Schools were turned into prisons or sites for torture, which was widespread. Beating people to death with iron bars and hoes, running them over with bulldozers, burning or burying them alive, drowning and throwing to crocodiles were all popular with Pol Pot. Hundreds of thousands of Cambodian people dug their own mass graves, which are now referred to as The Killing Fields.

 

Shan D. (49)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 12:38 pm
Okay, you've listed some extremely cruel people. Now tell me how they relate to this thread. Are you going to tell me Genghis Khan was an atheist?
 

Alexa R. (333)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 12:41 pm
Shan D. (33)
Friday July 26, 2013, 2:36 pm
You want chapter and verse, is that it? Let's start with how God thinks it's fine for women to experience pain in childbirth. Then how about all the innocent people and animals who would have died in the Flood (no, Noah did not take all of them on the Ark).

Shan D. (33)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 12:13 pm
Thirdly, nature itself is neither cruel nor kind. Nature simply IS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So if it is God, then it is cruel, but since you believe it is simply Nature, it simply IS.. ?!?
 

Alexa R. (333)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 12:43 pm
Yes Shan, all my examples are people that disbelieve the existence of God/a god.
 

Shan D. (49)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 12:59 pm
Nature is neither cruel, nor kind. It simply exists. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

No doubt you will be pleased to provide a link to a reputable source for Genghis Khan's atheism.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 1:21 pm
By the time Genghis Khan was ruler of his people he had been converted to a variety of different religions, from Christianity to Buddhism to Islam. In order to prevent strife amongst these different groups he proclaimed the first law of its kind in that he stated that all individuals were free to worship whatever God in whatever manner they chose. This blanket statement of religious toleration prevented the diverse beliefs of his followers from clashing, and did wonders for the cohesion of his empire. He remained a Deist supporter until he died.

Being a Deist supporter does not mean he himself believed in God the same way as Christians Jews, Hindus or Islam do. I know some atheists who are the same as Genghis Khan, they take bits from all faiths and form their own belief system. He never considered himself religious, neither practised any religion publicly or in his private life.

 

Shan D. (49)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 1:41 pm
Interesting. I've been known to invoke Loki, Raven, or Bast on occasion. The poem and very concept of the Rainbow Bridge (afterlife for animals) always reduces me to a puddle of tears.

Please cite your source for this information on Genghis Khan. I'd like to read it for myself.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Sunday July 28, 2013, 10:50 pm
This my main source, Shan:

The Religion of Genghis Khan (A.D. 1162-1227)
E. Dora Earthy
Numen

And here is some people who must have read at least some of the same sources as I:

How Genghis Khan Organised the Religious

Even sources that admit they are confused about his exact religion - he had so many yet none - acknowledge this one fact that he was interested in learning from all religion and had advisers among Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christians, and the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji, on top of the religion he was likely born into (Shamanism/Tengriism)
Burial of Genghis Khan
"Genghis Khan's religion is widely speculated to have been Shamanism or Tengriism, which was very likely among nomadic Mongol-Turkic tribes of Central Asia. But he was very tolerant religiously, and interested in learning philosophical and moral lessons from other religions. To do so, he consulted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christian missionaries, and the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji"

Perhaps you already know this, but just in case you do not, when reading history it is always good to study a variety of sources; it is something I've been taught early on in my days at university. When I lived and studied in Taiwan and traveled to Malaysia, it was easier for me to access a wider spectrum of sources on the history of Genghis Khan. Some of them are unfortunately not yet translated into English, however the information they contain have made it into the three sources I quoted above, the fact that Genghis Khan had good relations with personal advisers among Buddhist monks, Muslim Imams, Christian missionaries, and the Taoist monk Qiu Chuji, but that he was clearly a man who forged his own path and lived by his own conscience of what he decides.

As regards an afterlife for animals in paradise, the Bible clearly states in Isaiah 11:

6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
 

Alexa R. (333)
Monday July 29, 2013, 12:23 am
Oh, forgot to add, Genghis Khan also never used religion or God as his excuse for cruelty, he used reason and logic as his justifications for cruelty. He was too tolerant of both religion and the lack of it, or the believe in the existence of God or the absence of it. As a Deist supporter, but not a Deist himself, he saw no point in using religion or God as justifications for his cruel conquests - these cruel conquests to him were simply the most reasonable and logical thing to do in order to reach his goals.
 

Dot A. (133)
Tuesday July 30, 2013, 8:17 am
Humankind is the only animal that can rationalize anything that they wish to do. Rationalization can be used for murder as well as building homes for the homeless.
 

Dot A. (133)
Wednesday July 31, 2013, 7:15 am
here is an perspective from:

Blaise Pascal

Pascal rejected the hitherto claims of medieval natural theologians, by claiming that reason can neither affirm nor deny God’s existence. Instead he focused on the way that we should act given this ambiguity. He argued that since the negative consequences of believing are few (diminution of the passions, some pious actions) but the gain of believing is infinite (eternal life), it is more rational to believe than to disbelieve in God’s existence. This assumes, of course, both that God would not grant eternal life to a non-believer and that sincerity in one’s belief in God is not a requirement for salvation. As such, Pascal introduced an original form of rational voluntarism into the analysis of faith.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/

my comment-
Language is the barrier. Our lives are lived by our actions towards one another, and the way we treat one another. It is in those real things that we gather something about the belief of a person. Our feelings towards the 'other' is reflected in the actions towards 'others.'

There are times when humans are best to move on and not do damage to another, rather than to persist and perchance risk an unnecessary harm.

We are constantly on that continuum.

The more acts of care we offer the world is effected in a caring way.

If actions are wicked and harmful we suffer.

How we feel is directly related to our actions.

Yet, Pascal's proposition is based in logic, and also rational. When we use our feelings with mindfulness, we enhance our human experience with care and kindness. It would be irrational to our well being to act without feelings of care and good reasoning.

Language is weaker than our actions. So, this too is weak, yet, our words do count for something.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.