Atheism

CMI ^ | June 11, 2009 | Mariano

[GodGunsGuts]

1. Definition of “Atheism”

There is confusion and debate about the term “atheism” and its definition.

The term “atheism” finds its etymology in the Greek combination of “a” and “theos”. What “atheos” means is, as with any term, subject to context (and perhaps personal interpretation). Note that if an atheist states, “I do not believe in God”, this is technically not a statement about God’s existence or lack thereof. Does atheos mean “no God”, “without God”, “lack God belief” or “God does not exist”?

Early Christians were referred to as “atheists” because they did not believe in the Greek or Roman gods. Yet, while they positively affirmed the non-existence of those gods they likely believed that those gods were deceptive demons whom they did believe existed (1 Corinthians 8:4–6).

a bag of fertilizer: our ultimate fate according to atheism

In atheism, when we die we end up as mere fertilizer; plant food. Human life has no particular meaning or purpose and there is no real basis for ethics, love or even logical thought. Atheism provides no footing for a just, caring and secure society.

Let us consider other Greek-derived “a” words:

[expat_panama]

<

Nature is a perpetual warfare against all creatures.

Right now outside my office window I got a rainforest with all kinds of plant and animal life.  Rather than talking about what we know is true, let's look at what is. 

<--Here's a foto taken 5 minutes ago.

At the moment just about all life forms are minding their own business.  In the few cases where they interact it's cooperation.  Plants are making food that animals eat so they can fertilize the plants.   OK, conflicts happen but they're short lived and self extinguishing.

Maybe you got a different jungle than the one I got.

[Soothesayer]

It’s worse than that. Morality has become a buffet for right and wrong. Even those with no moral compass are just doing what they “feel” is ok.

[Soothesayer]

You believe in moral relativity?

“Your air of the superiority of YOUR Christian brand as “the universal set” is as ludicrous as every other religions’ claim that THEIR brand is the one and only brand that is correct. All you need now is a lunatic that thinks the same way, a video camera, and a machete....and an unbeliever...and you’ve got yourself a beheading for YouTube.”

If you believe this than why are you having a conversation with the Taliban?

[Soothesayer]

I’m actually an agnostic by the way. However, I disagree entirely on your proposal for what sounds to me like moral relativism. There is cultural relativism and then there is moral relativism. Cultural relativism says that we should wait to understand a culture before we judge it on moral terms. Moral relativism says that the moral behavior of other cultures is valid for that culture. For example, we are not permitted to judge cultures that marry off 8 year old girls to 50 year old pedophiles or judge cultures which forcefully rip the hymen off of young teens against their will or judge cultures which seek the extermination of an oppressed minority group. We are also not permitted to judge cultures that execute female rape victims. Is this what you had in mind?

If so, then I do not support your position. Even on a logical basis, moral relativism is self-refuting.If different sets of morals are valid, why is it that moral relativism is correct and moral absolutism is not correct? It seems like the only system of ethics you consider valid is the one found exclusively in the new version of secular humanism.

Where do you get the right to impose your moral relativism on me?

[expat_panama]

multiple sets of “morals” depending on your culture and/or religion. There is no universal set

True with details and not true when it comes to foundation values.   Virtually all the world's religions have the 'golden rule', prohibitions on murder, theft, etc.    

[ElectricStrawberry]

If you believe this than why are you having a conversation with the Taliban?

Didn't know you were the Taliban. Lemme go call the Feds. So, you think you're a "lunatic"?

You saying there are no Christian lunatics out there that would gladly justify their violence upon others through claims of others being immoral under Christian morality rules?? I know, they don't resort to beheadings and such, because it's a little too hands-on. They prefer the good ole American way of the bullet.........or maybe dragging someone to death behind their American pick-up truck.

You don't want to notice that "this way of morality is the only way" is exactly the mentality that takes a crazy summabich and turns him into a murderer?

[ElectricStrawberry]

Didn’t answer your question:

I “believe” in the United States Constitution and the protections it provides me......such that, so long as I harm nobody else, the government can get the hell out of my life without the morality police poking its nose in my business.

I “believe” in respecting other people and their property.

If you feel the need to label that as moral relativity, so be it.

[ElectricStrawberry]

Is this what you had in mind?

Nope.

[MarianoApologeticus]

Jason Kauppinen misrepresents the article and keeps complaining ex nihilo about the fact that the article states the following in the “Natural Born Atheist” section:

“Although, perhaps we could grant the claim: if atheists want to argue that atheism requires no more intellect than that which an infant can muster, why should we argue?”

Jason comments,

“Even after having previously drawn distinctions between strong and weak atheism [b]in the same article[/b]!”

Yet, he, for some odd reason, fails to note that that section begins by stating the following in the very second sentence,

“In part this is incumbent upon which definition of atheism we are employing.”

[Soothesayer]

A religion (or any belief system) is to be judged according to its holy scripture or primary maxim(s), not according to the assorted wackos who associate with it in name only.

It can go the other way around. Do you want atheists to be associated with Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, etc? I sure don’t!

[Soothesayer]

“so long as I harm nobody else”

That’s what morality is all about, that and taking care of yourself at the same time. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself”. The problem is that you can actually be causing harm to others even if you “feel” that what you are doing is ok. I’m sure you can think of at least a few examples of particularly evil historical figures who were convinced that what they were doing was supremely moral.

Sometimes Christians will judge the moral behavior of others when they think this simple maxim is being violated. If you are harming others then you are harming others. Opinion and preference to not enter into the equation. Reality is reality.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen.