All forums > General Chat > Are there any other 'out' atheist writers here?
page 806 of 812

Are there any other 'out' atheist writers here?

David Christopher Arnold

first registered 17.09.08

last online 18 hours ago

What's up, people?

Posted: 12/09/2012 02:15:47

report abuse

TPN

first registered 23.08.11

last online 7 hours ago

I am late to this forum, obviously. Like Stopper, I became an atheist rather early. Sunday school (I went twice) was unconvincing. I now write on atheist issues.
One thing, though that I feel strongly is that atheists should get into the debate on the nature of morality n order to remove the religious vocabulary that surrounds it. "Good" and "evil" are real enough, but what are they? How can we discuss them without resorting to concepts that are more spiritual than concrete. For that matter, can we talk about matters of the spirit (the mind, the "soul", if you will) in a way that in anchored to the real world?
The approach (let's not talk of answers too glibly) is to derive moral concepts from nature and human behavior. As a lawyer with a degree in economics, I sort of do this naturally (too jaded to do otherwise, I guess). But I do find that it is possible to avoid the trap of "moral relativism," that epithet that religious types throw at atheist so often. But this is not to say that morality is absolute, either. Morality is based on survival. Faith, to my mind, is the trust that grows among people so that we are not only creatures of the jungle, fighting and killing constantly (though we sink to his pattern often enough). It is this faith/trust that is the kernel of moral behavior.
Interestingly, I find that the concept of a monotheistic God is totally dependent on this natural morality existing first, because we cannot have faith in a god without having faith in each other. Pagan deities were not trusted in the same way. their realm was above and apart and their interference in human affairs was capricious, like the forces of nature, not the result of any possessive "jealousy," as the Hebrew god behaved.


Posted: 14/09/2012 13:22:21

report abuse

HECROW55

first registered 19.10.10

last online 18 hours ago

One of the massive problems with Mr Mcd was that he came flying in here with an semantic agenda to label all atheists as liars, which was a tad offensive to put it mildly.

You're not born an atheist, it's a choice you make once you are of an age to make it. This is the real reason that religion hates atheism and it's the fact that given their insistence on free will to back up their choice, choosing something else is anathema to them, which gives you some idea of their take on choice.

Personally I chose atheism at the tender age of 8, though I did not know the word, because at that age I saw there was a disparity between what I was being told in Sunday School and what I was experiencing beyond there. I found that disbelieving what was out there to be somewhat more difficult than accepting what I was being told so I made a choice. At an age prior to any narrowing of vision or veins, and a clarity seldom granted to us I chose to be what I am.

I did not choose to be a liar. close quotes

I don't hate atheists, but I also don't understand their logic.

'I don't have to prove what I don't believe.'

If that is the case, there is no side to your debate, thus doomed to lose any such intelligent debate concerning God.

It is also a christian's, and other religions I suppose, right to make the choice when they come of age.

Offered in the Love of Christ,
Harold Open-mouthed Open-mouthed Open-mouthed

Posted: 14/09/2012 16:00:03

report abuse

David Christopher Arnold

first registered 17.09.08

last online 18 hours ago

I don't hate atheists, but I also don't understand their logic.

'I don't have to prove what I don't believe.'

If that is the case, there is no side to your debate, thus doomed to lose any such intelligent debate concerning God.

It is also a christian's, and other religions I suppose, right to make the choice when they come of age.

Offered in the Love of Christ,
Harold Open-mouthed Open-mouthed Open-mouthed close quotes

You can't prove a negative, first of all. That's scientific thinking. You can't prove there aren't magical unicorns flitting about us, invisible and incorporeal, 24/7, laughing and gaming with us without our knowledge. You also can't prove Cthulhu will never rise from the oceans and devour our population whole-cloth.

And the problem with "when they come of age" is that age is often the age at which the child speaks, rather than when the child develops abstract reasoning at around 16, plus or minus depending. Parents assume their belief in Christ or Horus or whatever is correct, and surround the child with an environment of this magical thinking, giving the child few ways out that will not break the nature of their relationship with their only authority figures.

Posted: 14/09/2012 17:26:59

report abuse

Stopper

first registered 21.07.11

last online online

I don't hate atheists, but I also don't understand their logic.

'I don't have to prove what I don't believe.'

If that is the case, there is no side to your debate, thus doomed to lose any such intelligent debate concerning God.

It is also a christian's, and other religions I suppose, right to make the choice when they come of age.

Offered in the Love of Christ,
Harold Open-mouthed Open-mouthed Open-mouthed close quotes

It's not up to me to prove that God exists, I don't believe he/she/it does. It's up to you to prove that God exists to me, but you can't do it, can you? Anyway it's usually you lot demanding that we disprove God, which is a bit like disproving Fairies which is impossible,not because they exist but because they don't. You can never find the mouse that lurks behind alpha centauri but you can't categorically say it isn't there, though I have my doubts on that one too.

As regards Christians choosing to be so, no, that is almost 100% wrong, as a general rule religious people have been indoctrinated in those beliefs by which time they have no choice except it seems to willfully disbelieve the accumulated evidence of fossils, genetics, astronomy, and radioactive decay in their attempts to close down any argument that could render your ever more vulnerable beliefs redundant.

You also cannot ever pronounce on any persons ability to debate the idea, concept, history, or genealogy of God. I don't believe in fairies but I can should I choose wax lyrical about them and God's likely place within the restrictions of the physical universe, a common enough topic at my table, but there you go.

Posted: 14/09/2012 18:05:34
Last Edit: 14/09/2012 18:14:42 by Stopper

report abuse

Stopper

first registered 21.07.11

last online online

I am late to this forum, obviously. Like Stopper, I became an atheist rather early. Sunday school (I went twice) was unconvincing. I now write on atheist issues.
One thing, though that I feel strongly is that atheists should get into the debate on the nature of morality n order to remove the religious vocabulary that surrounds it. "Good" and "evil" are real enough, but what are they? How can we discuss them without resorting to concepts that are more spiritual than concrete. For that matter, can we talk about matters of the spirit (the mind, the "soul", if you will) in a way that in anchored to the real world?
The approach (let's not talk of answers too glibly) is to derive moral concepts from nature and human behavior. As a lawyer with a degree in economics, I sort of do this naturally (too jaded to do otherwise, I guess). But I do find that it is possible to avoid the trap of "moral relativism," that epithet that religious types throw at atheist so often. But this is not to say that morality is absolute, either. Morality is based on survival. Faith, to my mind, is the trust that grows among people so that we are not only creatures of the jungle, fighting and killing constantly (though we sink to his pattern often enough). It is this faith/trust that is the kernel of moral behavior.
Interestingly, I find that the concept of a monotheistic God is totally dependent on this natural morality existing first, because we cannot have faith in a god without having faith in each other. Pagan deities were not trusted in the same way. their realm was above and apart and their interference in human affairs was capricious, like the forces of nature, not the result of any possessive "jealousy," as the Hebrew god behaved. close quotes

Well TPN I'm incline myself to believe that the Greeks, in their religion, as in most things, had it right. The pagan gods were of course of nature and the seasons but in the delightful writings of the great Greek poets and playwrights there was laid out a family of humans with all of their doubts, worries, fears and jealousies writ large on Mount Olympus. These humans had the powers of Gods though, and the playwrights showed that the giving of too much power to any human was not recommended. An education that we have most definitely forgotten.

The accumulation of powers was the result of the monotheistic God and this gave such accumulations legitimation, which was the whole point in my opinion, the one God was meant to vanquish the many, this is the arch head of our hierarchic system, that takes from the many and gives to the few.

Posted: 14/09/2012 19:05:40

report abuse

David Christopher Arnold

first registered 17.09.08

last online 18 hours ago

Well TPN I'm incline myself to believe that the Greeks, in their religion, as in most things, had it right. The pagan gods were of course of nature and the seasons but in the delightful writings of the great Greek poets and playwrights there was laid out a family of humans with all of their doubts, worries, fears and jealousies writ large on Mount Olympus. These humans had the powers of Gods though, and the playwrights showed that the giving of too much power to any human was not recommended. An education that we have most definitely forgotten.

The accumulation of powers was the result of the monotheistic God and this gave such accumulations legitimation, which was the whole point in my opinion, the one God was meant to vanquish the many, this is the arch head of our hierarchic system, that takes from the many and gives to the few. close quotes

Also, I think the Gods were supposed to be nicknames for powers in the world responsible for events benign and malignant. Different flavors of luck, as it were.

Posted: 15/09/2012 17:38:26

report abuse

TPN

first registered 23.08.11

last online 7 hours ago

In looking up the Stoics, it seems that the Greeks just after the time of Alexander, were moving from fairly primitive paganism, rich as it was in literary value, to a different understanding of the universe. It was they who coined, then developed, the concept of "logos" (the "word") to mean the mysterious fores around us. Not gods but something else. The Jews in the person of Philo of Alexandria, adopted this, but the Christians seem to have co-opted it, exchanging the broad Greek concept for a return to worshiping a god. or did they? I am not sure that Jesus was preaching a god in the Greek or Hebrew sense. It's just possible that whatever progress Jesus and his followers were striving for was taken by Paul and plugged into the retrograde pagan beliefs of the time just to gain followers. In short, Paul executed a return to paganism, just with out the tolerance that paganism was known for.

Posted: 19/09/2012 01:50:47

report abuse

Stopper

first registered 21.07.11

last online online

The thing about paganism which was essentially am agricultural religion is that the gods were of the the land and rivers and they were involved in the seasons and most importantly the crops, so these gods were clothed in reality. This allowed people to get pissed off at these gods, hence the literature.

The monotheistic God brooks no criticism at all and is raised to some ideal of perfection as an excuse for a childlike vanity such that when a religious bunch gets upset, as in the recent Muslim riots it smacks of tantrums, reflecting the nature of the God they created in the first place. The perfect God cannot be tolerant.


Posted: 19/09/2012 12:25:23

report abuse

TPN

first registered 23.08.11

last online 7 hours ago

Stopper points out something I like to call the "dilemma of monotheism." That is, monotheistic religions, for the most part (I don't know much about Zoroastrianism or Sikhism) sink into often severe intolerance when one sect of any one of them dominates a society. This is despite the fact that most of them preach love, forgiveness and all that. What happens is that believers get rigid and decide to define God in one way, and one way only. In effect, they try to "own" God. If I were religious, I would consider such presumption blasphemous. Who after all can legitimately claim to "know" God that well? God is supposed to be a mystery. To me, such rigid believers almost cannot be considered to be monotheists any more, because, by being so proprietary, they are almost saying "My god is better than yours." A different sort of polytheism, and much more destructive.

Posted: 29/09/2012 19:46:18

report abuse

To leave comments on this message board please Register or Login

page 806 of 812