Atheism, secularism and religious art

[basics]

Christianity is not a religion. It is built on faith and faith alone which comes from God and God alone. In fact it is built on people telling how Jesus Christ died on a cross to take away their sin and here ends the Gospel because it takes nothing else to bring a person to salvation. God brings that person to the point where he or she realises that they need Jesus Christ's action on the cross to take the yoke of sin from off them and as a consequence be born again. It's all of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit and it's the greatest experience any person can go through.

Religion on the other hand is a huge conglomeration of various ideas made by man and supported by idols to try to authenticate what it is they believe. Sadly most of it emanates from the Bible stories going all the way back to Nimrod as it was in his name the first religion came about being called the Chaldean mysteries.

[HannibalExMachina]

so, most christians today arent actually christians, because they clearly have an organised religion?

[RubiconDecision]

Jesus didn't come to Earth to start a religion. Jesus came to Earth to repair the broken relationship between God and Humanity.

Diverse people make up the various 33,000 sects of Christianity. That doesn't include the sects of Catholicism and the Orthodox churches. Jesus didn't start them. People did. In Africa, there are innumerable sects which is why the number is so large.

Despite this the main beliefs are the same.

[fkizz]

so, most christians today arent actually christians, because they clearly have an organised religion?

Some Protestants and Baptists will non-ironically say this.

Though I assume in Basics case he was separating the Faith/Belief individual from the Organized group of people known as Clergy. Since Protestants are fairly independent from Clergy, compared to Catholics/Orthodox, he stated that Christianity can be practiced without a big church such as Vatican or Orthodox Church.

By comparison their clergy is much less numerous and doesn't have the divison from society that normally the churches have. Though having small numbered Clergy is still organized religion I would say.

[RubiconDecision]

Many evangelical Christians will come right out and say they are Christ followers, not Christians because that label is so messed up and generic as to mean nearly nothing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4NQ5guwsuCY
http://www.newsweek.com/christian-ve...er-jesus-76343

[Muizer]

Double

[Muizer]

As a general observation about this, and many similar, discussions. I can understand why religious people are concerned with the philosophical and scientific debate about the existence of a creator. That existence is of course a necessary ingredient of their faiths. What I lack in their perspective is that this is one way logic. In no way does it follow that the possible scientific case for a creator supports any religion. No one has ever converted to christianity or any other religion based on scientific considerations alone and for good reason. The number of religions science allows for is infinite. Why pick one over the other?

The "jump" from believing in a creator to believing in a specific version of that creator remains always 100% based on belief in ancient revelations passed down through many generations of people whose mental map of the world was rife with superstition. Today reports of someone rising from the dead would be met by scepticism and incredulity, and people being convinced en masse would be a powerful signal. But to the people who started believing these revelations and passing them on in ancient times, the supernatural was and had always been everywhere. These people believed every natural phenomenon could be a divine signal. They warded off the evil eye, wore good luck charms, read the intestines of animals, had books about how dreams should be interpreted, consulted intoxicated crones and on and on and on.It is perhaps difficult to imagine, but everything points to their lives being utterly pervaded by this, and evidently they believed they saw proof that it was all real. IMHO their testimony today would be worthless because of this and science does not and cannot shore up that shoddy fundament.

The scientific cause for a creator can only lead to the conclusion that there possibly is some organizing factor at the heart of everything and that life (not humanity per se, and certainly not specifically) may be a part of it. From there on, it's all speculation and the credibility of any religion, as I said, rests entirely on the credibility of the underpinning revelations.

[RubiconDecision]

Yet atheists and agnostics believe by faith that nothing created everything. Now that is illogical and unscientific.

But rather the world is actually so full of wonder and hope that how can you not believe in the supernatural?

I guess if you were really jaded, never had a genuine utterly loyal best friend, and never head over heels in love, and never had a devoted loving child, then never went camping under the stars in Autumn with a roaring fire, then maybe... maybe you might be a bitter nihilist.

While I have met delightful optimistic atheists, most seem to be sourpusses.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Wrong!

I think you are just trying to equate atheism and agnosticism with your religion for some reason that I can't understand.

Atheism as a general term, is not recognizing a divinity. It has nothing to do with creation and the origins of the world, it's simply not recognition of Theos=God/Divine. An atheist could very well believe that our world was created by aliens and that we are pawns in a game of a superior civilization. Nothing to do with creation coming from nothing, you are confused.

Agnosticism is when someone doesn't know what to believe yet.

Sad!

[RubiconDecision]

Atheism by definition in philosophy is the active disbelief in God or gods.

If you have assigned aliens as the creators, then you created gods.


If you are an atheist as defined by philosophy, then the first question is how did the world begin?

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

I don't know, and neither do you, except if you have proof to show us?

[RubiconDecision]

There is no proof for love, and YHWH is LOVE.

Passionate spirituality is based upon feelings. That is why in Christianity it is based upon altruism when genuine. There is no proof for love. There is no proof for altruism.

Atheism basically is a religion of the Self: you worship yourself and thus become a nihilist because you know you are not a god. Nor are you worthy of being worshipped.

You have painted yourself into a corner like an inexperienced husband who never painted a screened in porch.

You cannot know anything period despite evidence. Any philosopher can readily show that you cannot definitively KNOW anything. Therefore evidence is a weak crutch.

We intuit Validity by reason and by feeling. That is how we come to an epiphany. That is how we have a Eureka moment.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/57/...nything_At_All

How can I know (perceive with certainty) anything at all?

My first triumphant answer is that I can’t; gloriously confirmed by studies of philosophy, especially of David Hume.


Without the possibility of knowledge, I am left with belief: belief about all things, material or abstract. Belief about everything I chose to accept as valid; that this table is real, what scientists tell me, ideas, religions, our amazing planet and its people. There is a beautiful democracy in unknowing.


Except I do have trouble with ‘the real world’. I cannot trust material objects to stay where I believe them to be (my pens for example), and I also have difficulty with with the limitations of man-made systems like mathematics and logic. How is it that every mother is the best mother?
Of course, my dreamy existence relies on the (false?) sense of reality most of us have. I admire people who can control things, make calculations, build aeroplanes... Their manipulations seem to work. How is this possible?


One answer could lie in William James’ pragmatism: “If it is useful it is true”, or Richard Rorty’s variant: “Making and taking as true.” But by assuming that objects are real and making use of them, with positive results, are we thereby proving the reality of these objects? Perhaps this is how I can know that the words in my head at least relate to something out there.

David Hume

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

.... All I'm saying is I don't need proof for believing that I don't know, because I don't.

I'm not the one making bold claims of whatever happened millions of years ago based on my feelings... lol....

[RubiconDecision]

Hahaha

You just don't get it! It doesn't matter if you disbelieve in YHWH.

YHWH believes in you. It isn't important to convince you rational arguments. David Hume ultimately understood that since human beings are driven by passions that this overrides their rationalizing.

You didn't watch the video, did you?

Christianity works Perfectly with Hume...especially when it is positive, kind, generous, focused on education, compassinate, all the things which make us Human...not Robots.

I don't need to make a list of why I should ask that pretty lady out. I intuit her worth, her lovely form, her gentle manner, the spirit in her eyes, and just ask her out.

That is what belief is like. You intuit by reason and feeling what is right. You don't have to have proof.

[basics]

so, most christians today arent actually christians, because they clearly have an organised religion?

HannibalExMachina,

Jesus said that the pathway to heaven is so narrow that few ever get through. He elaborated on that with two parables, one, the sheep and the goats, two, the wheat and the tares. In both cases both were infiltrated by people that Jesus Himself never knew yet when the great day arrives these will cry out that they did this and that in His name but somewhere along the line they had missed the point, that being that a person must be born again of the Spirit of God to enter heaven. Jesus knows who they are thankfully because the Spirit dwells in them but not the others.

Concerning organised religion, I think you will find hierarchies that rule the roost making up all sorts of weird and wonderful additives to what is a simple Gospel. Jesus came to set men free from such things but that message seems to have got lost through time. Does that mean all them that are in those systems are lost? No, it doesn't but why they remain in them is another question. A saved person needs communion with other saved people for it is the same Spirit that dwells in both, that way false indoctrination cannot affect them. Take the Beatitudes as an example because these are the fruits of people who are saved not aspirations for them who aren't, why? Because if they were then people could be saved by works and not faith and that would be quite contrary to Jesus' teachings. If sacrificing animals did no more than cover Israel what chance trying to do good works have?

[RubiconDecision]

Christians in the past claimed to hate idolatry, then built massive cathedrals of idolatry. They wasted huge sums of money on buildings and pipe organs.

Christ followers are opening store fronts, food banks, clothing closets, playing a guitar, so to reduce the costs of infrastructure and get the money to the People who are always suffering.

The worship of GOD with all your heart, mind, and soul is intricately woven into loving your neighbor as yourself.

Church is supposed to be a brief recharging of spiritual energy so you can then all as individuals do ministry to the sick, the needy, the naked, the imprisoned, and the ostracized.

Church is not supposed to be about erecting a new temple of Babel.

The wonder is pervasive in the beauty of Nature and in the faces of the People. That is how you see the face of YHWH.

[fkizz]

The "jump" from believing in a creator to believing in a specific version of that creator remains always 100% based on belief in ancient revelations passed down through many generations of people whose mental map of the world was rife with superstition. Today reports of someone rising from the dead would be met by scepticism and incredulity, and people being convinced en masse would be a powerful signal. But to the people who started believing these revelations and passing them on in ancient times, the supernatural was and had always been everywhere. These people believed every natural phenomenon could be a divine signal. They warded off the evil eye, wore good luck charms, read the intestines of animals, had books about how dreams should be interpreted, consulted intoxicated crones and on and on and on.It is perhaps difficult to imagine, but everything points to their lives being utterly pervaded by this, and evidently they believed they saw proof that it was all real. IMHO their testimony today would be worthless because of this and science does not and cannot shore up that shoddy fundament.

Intellect is just one of the many abilities of your brain. Your brain/mind is a swiss knife, with many and sometimes apparently endless possible developeable skills. Not all of them based on Intellect. (Can you name a single prosperous society where philosophers and intellectuals made up majority of population?)
What makes the difference between being the best in something or just being average many times is no longer intellect.

That said, the problem with being a scientific-empirical sceptic for your whole life is to subscribe to being a Fence sitter until the day you die, because the questions of Theology ultimately are of the same family of questions of Philosophy, and sometimes end up having practical effect into real problems such as death penalty, euthanasia or an eugenics program being allowed or not.
A sceptical fence sitter will ironically be much more vulnerable to propaganda and emotivity in this than someone with a developed opinion on such cases. Said opinion that requires choosing something without a 100% proof for it.
In essence it feels a sort of aversion/phobia to making a choice in environments with some uncertainty or that have fog blurring your clarity.

So, what worth is there in living a life without ever taking a dare into trying to reply to Humanity most puzzling questions? Feels bizarrely low self esteem inducing path, with a taste of wasted potential. for such a complex being that a human is. But some people react otherwise.

Also something that could be proven routinely in a Lab, would you call it the Ultimate Being/Ultimate "Puzzle"? Or just another lab discovered theorem?

[Muizer]

That said, the problem with being a scientific-empirical sceptic for your whole life is to subscribe to being a Fence sitter until the day you die, because the questions of Theology ultimately are of the same family of questions of Philosophy, and sometimes end up having practical effect into real problems such as death penalty, euthanasia or an eugenics program being allowed or not.

I think there's an element of circular reasoning here. It's an assertion of religions that with belief in it come ethical guidelines to form an opinion about such issues. But I could assert that those guidelines come from a different place alltogether and thereby de-couple the question of faith from those ethical issues. IMHO whether a fence is worth coming down from on one side or another depends entirely on the authority I ascribe to whoever put up that fence, and if I don't ascribe any authority there, then the fence is as important as that put up by any other random assertion. I mean, if I come up with an assertion, does that give me the 'power' to put you on a fence just by deciding whether to tell you or not?

A sceptical fence sitter will ironically be much more vulnerable to propaganda and emotivity in this than someone with a developed opinion on such cases. Said opinion that requires choosing something without a 100% proof for it. In essence it feels a sort of aversion/phobia to making a choice in environments with some uncertainty or that have fog blurring your clarity.

A bit negatively put, but to me that sounds mostly like the right way to live. I mean, putting in place arbitrary criteria to generate fake clarity in complex issues is good for one's peace of mind, sure, but is it a measure of wisdom?

So, what worth is there in living a life without ever taking a dare into trying to reply to Humanity most puzzling questions? Feels bizarrely low self esteem inducing path, with a taste of wasted potential. for such a complex being that a human is. But some people react otherwise?

In this respect the questions raised by science do a lot more for me than the answers given by religion!

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Intellect is just one of the many abilities of your brain. Your brain/mind is a swiss knife, with many and sometimes apparently endless possible developeable skills. Not all of them based on Intellect. (Can you name a single prosperous society where philosophers and intellectuals made up majority of population?)
What makes the difference between being the best in something or just being average many times is no longer intellect.

That said, the problem with being a scientific-empirical sceptic for your whole life is to subscribe to being a Fence sitter until the day you die, because the questions of Theology ultimately are of the same family of questions of Philosophy, and sometimes end up having practical effect into real problems such as death penalty, euthanasia or an eugenics program being allowed or not.
A sceptical fence sitter will ironically be much more vulnerable to propaganda and emotivity in this than someone with a developed opinion on such cases. Said opinion that requires choosing something without a 100% proof for it.
In essence it feels a sort of aversion/phobia to making a choice in environments with some uncertainty or that have fog blurring your clarity.

So, what worth is there in living a life without ever taking a dare into trying to reply to Humanity most puzzling questions? Feels bizarrely low self esteem inducing path, with a taste of wasted potential. for such a complex being that a human is. But some people react otherwise.

Also something that could be proven routinely in a Lab, would you call it the Ultimate Being/Ultimate "Puzzle"? Or just another lab discovered theorem?

Well, i consider myself an "atheist" or "agnostic" if you want to slap a label on it.

The way I see it is since I have no proof of the actual existence of this god or that god, I prefer not to subscribe to a particular set of teachings or a specific doctrine.

Let's assume that the universe or part of it, was indeed created by a divine being. Why would I call it Jesus or God or Zeus or anything? Not only do I have no clue as to what exactly this "being" would look like, or if it's ...male... ( we always assume the creator is male so we slap the name God on it, not Goddess) I wonder why?

Maybe this being's existence wouldn't even fit into what we consider possible. Maybe the "creator" is just a massive blob of energy, that shares no concept of our social constructs such as justice, right and wrong etc.

The unknowns are so many, that to me, it seems to be lazy to just slap a name on something that I have very little actual information on, then follow a set of rules that some were obviously written by men and call it a day.

My problem with most religious people, philosophically, or scientifically, is that they think they have got the answers to what life is, what death is, what happens afterwards. When they don't know the answer it's usually because "God is mysterious". That eliminates the possibility and will to actually explore these questions further.

If I'm going to be punished after I die because I followed my nature to be inquisitive and restless in my search for knowledge, so be it.

[fkizz]

A bit negatively put, but to me that sounds mostly like the right way to live. I mean, putting in place arbitrary criteria to generate fake clarity in complex issues is good for one's peace of mind, sure, but is it a measure of wisdom?

For me that's a tad depressive way to live, but if others people are happy with that, well whatever suits you.
If there's fog ahead blocking your view, doesn't mean there isn't anything around. It just means perception is much harder than normal. You may have to use your hands to figure out what's around rather than eyes as usual. Some people surrender to the fog.

In this respect the questions raised by science do a lot more for me than the answers given by religion!

Gadgets and materialistic conditions aside (that end up being linked to Capitalism production chains), in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics, what has science done for you?