 |
|
|
|
|
October 16th, 2013
03:20 PM ET
What Oprah gets wrong about atheism
(CNN) - To some, Oprah Winfrey appears to have an almost godlike status. Her talents are well recognized, and her endorsement can turn almost any product into an overnight bestseller. This godlike perception is fitting, since in recent years Winfrey’s work has increasingly emphasized spirituality, including programs like her own "Super Soul Sunday." But what happens when an atheist enters the mix? A few days ago Winfrey interviewed long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad on Super Soul Sunday. Nyad identified herself as an atheist who experiences awe and wonder at the natural world and humanity. Nyad, 64, who swam from Cuba to Key West last month, said “I can stand at the beach’s edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity — all the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt.” Winfrey responded, “Well I don’t call you an atheist then.” Winfrey went on, “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery then that is what God is… It’s not a bearded guy in the sky.” Nyad clarified that she doesn’t use the word God because it implies a “presence… a creator or an overseer.” Winfrey’s response may have been well intended, but it erased Nyad’s atheist identity and suggested something entirely untrue and, to many atheists like me, offensive: that atheists don’t experience awe and wonder. MORE ON CNN: Diana Nyad completes historic Cuba-to-Florida swim The exchange between Winfrey and Nyad reminds me of a conversation I once had with a Catholic scholar. The professor once asked me: “When I talk about God, I mean love and justice and reconciliation, not a man in the sky. You talk about love and justice and reconciliation. Why can’t you just call that God?” I replied: “Why must you call that God? Why not just call it what it is: love and justice and reconciliation?” Though we started off with this disagreement, we came to better understand one another’s points of view through patient, honest dialogue. Conversations like that are greatly needed today, as atheists are broadly misunderstood. MORE ON CNN: Behold, the six types of atheists When I visit college and university campuses around the United States, I frequently ask students what words are commonly associated with atheists. Their responses nearly always include words like “negative,” “selfish,” “nihilistic” and “closed-minded.” When I ask how many of them actually have a relationship with an atheist, few raise their hands. Relationships can be transformative. The Pew Research Center found that among the 14% of Americans who changed their mind from opposing same-sex marriage to supporting it in the last decade, the top reason given was having “friends, family, acquaintances who are gay/lesbian.” Knowing someone of a different identity can increase understanding. This has been true for me as a queer person and as an atheist. I have met people who initially think I can’t actually be an atheist when they learn that I experience awe and am committed to service and social justice. But when I explain that atheism is central to my worldview — that I am in awe of the natural world and that I believe it is up to human beings, instead of a divine force, to strive to address our problems — they often better understand my views, even if we don’t agree. While theists can learn by listening to atheists more, atheists themselves can foster greater understanding by not just emphasizing the “no” of atheism — our disagreement over the existence of any gods — but also the “yes” of atheism and secular humanism, which recognizes the amazing potential within human beings. Carl Sagan, the agnostic astronomer and author, would have agreed with Nyad’s claim that you can be an atheist, agnostic or nonreligious person and consider yourself “spiritual.” As Sagan wrote in "The Demon-Haunted World,": "When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.” Nyad told Winfrey that she feels a similar sense of awe: “I think you can be an atheist who doesn’t believe in an overarching being who created all of this and sees over it,” she said. “But there’s spirituality because we human beings, and we animals, and maybe even we plants, but certainly the ocean and the moon and the stars, we all live with something that is cherished and we feel the treasure of it.” MORE ON CNN: 'Atheist' isn’t a dirty word, congresswoman I experience that same awe when I see people of different beliefs coming together across lines of religious difference to recognize that we are all human — that we all love and hurt. Perhaps Winfrey, who could use her influence to shatter stereotypes about atheists rather than reinforce them, would have benefited from listening to Nyad just a bit more closely and from talking to more atheists about awe and wonder. I know many who would be up to the task. Chris Stedman is the assistant humanist chaplain at Harvard University, coordinator of humanist life for the Yale Humanist Community and author of Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious. soundoff (4,964 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next »
Next entry »Stephen Colbert roasts the Pope
« Previous entryIn Syria, Muslims struggle to celebrate holy day
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
How dare you question a great woman like Oprah. She has done so much for this world.
The racism is obvious from this godless heathen
What's described here doesn't seem materially different from the parts that Aboriginal Religions X, Y & Z are going to have in common. Isn't that just as susceptible to supposed foibles as an organized religion?
Huh?
Wonderment and awe in the world (and universe) around us are universally part of the human condition.
Religion is the attempts to explain it away with "God did it" whether this is the Great spirit, Coyote, Allah or Jesus.
Atheists still experience this feeling. We just don't attribute it to the divine and we don't have a good word for it.
Have to make up a word to keep transmitting the meaning...
I am WISE. Melissa you are being very evil! Makes no sense to write to you. I am done...
Let me save you hacks some time: There's no use accusing me of being a joyless drone stalking through a gray, loveless world because I don't think a sky person follows me around. The world is an endless fountain of miracles and wonders and joys, as well as miseries and deaths and disappointments. Seasons turn and the grass grows back, and babies grow up and do things we never expected. Every minute there is a new song, a new picture, a new life born, and it's all part of a bigger picture. There are so many chaotic factors that there might as well be magic loose in the world; we can only glimpse tomorrow and it's never exactly what we thought it would be. You can't quantify love or honor or decency, these are abstract concepts, but I just saw a man awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroic deeds. They weren't abstract to him or his comrades. Pretending I'm not filled with joy all day because I'm not slave to some moloch or rakasha is a waste of your time. Paint a picture or make a poem instead of trying to make me bow down to crossed boards; it would be a more pleasing offering to your god.
People still believe in gods? What century is this?!
The 283923rd century. Yes, there are still disgustingly ignorant idiots believing in utter BS. Get back in your time machine. Go!
@cribbooky
"People still believe in gods? What century is this?!"
What difference does it make what century it is? If the evidence points to God's existence, then the truth will remain no matter what century it is.
What evidence?
How can an atheist be offended by anything if they dont believe in anything?
What does one have to do with the other?
Often it is a matter of defending liberty.
Atheists believe in a great many things, just not an divine super power.
Why must you think that in order to not beleive in a "GOD" you must call yourself an " athiest" . I'm a human being, a realist . I feel no need to advertize or argue the point of who and why I am What I am . I try to be at peace and centered with my self and all of my seroundings. When one sees the wonders of our earth, the beauty of its nature and the complexety of humanity how else should you feel ,... but at awe...
One does not need to be offended to see a logical need to destroy a fraudulent and treasonous organization of any sort.
Being offended is not a requirement in seeking to correct the mistakes of others. You fail to figure things out again. *yawn*
Why do you imagine that we don't believe in anything? How would that even work? I just don't believe in Jehovah, Buddha, Allah, BAAL, Moloch, Mumbo Jumbo, Jesus, Elvis, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm pretty sure Thor and Odin are myths, and Jupiter is a planet these days. I'd look pretty dumb nit believing in cars or air or my pants, right?
Oh, you were trying to insult me? I bet you were. Huge fail.
I really hope this is a troll, because one of my beliefs is that no one who can log onto a computer could be that dumb.
You're using "anything" in two different contexts. The second "anything" is not true: Atheists believe in lots of things, they just don't believe in some all-knowing, all-powerful supernatural being that created the universe. So atheists are well within their rights to be offended by things, just like you may be as well.
There are many selfish fake religious leaders like Joe O stein. Peter Puff who are brain washing people through the TV media for their own interest and misguide innocents. They are sitting on tons of money systematically looted from people. They should be investigated.
... a fool and their money are soon parted.
Atheists are just unbelievers, plain and simple..........you can dress them up, but their still unbelievers........
...... 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Yawn
too much unnecessary capitalization.. too boring.. too much BS
Only in as far as they do not believe in the existence of a god.
They may actually be believers in many other things.
Christian conceit, that the word "believer" belongs to them.
that is all atheism means - no belief in god.
your bible mumbo-jumbo means nothing.
You should keep reading your bible. Read it all. Read both stories of Noah. Read about what they did after Moses. I did. And that was the end of my belief in any sort of divine being.
My parents and brothers, who all consider themselves Good Christians, neither understand nor appreciate my views and my constant striving to live an honorable life. I once told my ex-wife's father that while I'm not a Christian (by choice) I still consider myself spiritual since I do see and apprecaite the awe of nature. I would say that 95% of the people professing themselves Christian, when finding out that I'm an atheist, never cease to attempt to convert me, to convince me that I'm wrong. When push comes to chove, none of us will know the truth until the moment we die. If I'm wrong, so be it ... I will at least have lived my life honorably and, as much as possible, without judgement of those different than I.
@Michael
"I will at least have lived my life honorably and, as much as possible, without judgement of those different than I."
What standards are you using to determine whether or not you've lived an honorable life?
His own standards, like any other human does with anything. A person's deity has the same standards they do, shocker. A person's life is lived to the best of their ability, even if someone else thinks they are failing miserably.
That is the rub, isn't it. In the ultimate, objective sense, the world is purposeless if Atheism is true. Any falsely manufactured purpose or value we place on it is a delusion and irrational.
Atheist leads to irrational and delusional behavior and consistency to what atheism applies leads an individual to nihilism.
Now, not many atheists are nihilists, of course, but that simply shows that they are inconsistent in following their beliefs to their logical end. In turn, they daily deny their very own atheistic worldview without even realizing it.
Why is a purpose I derive for myself necessarily "falsely manufactured"?
Does not a Christian derive his purpose himself from what he believes? So does everyone else. So....believing in your god specifically causes it to be "truly manufactured"?
Morality is a covenant by humans, between humans, that allows us to live topgether.
We are selfish creatures by nature, yet our survival depends on cooperation. In order to balance these two conflicting instincts, mankind has had to develop rules that allow room for both.
These rules are not the same for all communities – hence we've had so many different types of religion and government throughout history.
Religion binds communities together by giving a common frame of reference. Shared fears (like divine retribution), hopes (like going to heaven) and rituals allow the instinct for self preservation to extend beyond one's self and immediate family.
Were it not for our ability to reason this out and cooperate, our species would not survive. As individuals, we are prey animals – soft, squidgy, slow and bereft of in-built offensive capabilities. As a cooperative group, we have become the dominant species in nearly every eco-system on Earth.
. Effective cooperation is a learned skill and the successful religions recognize this. Christianity reveals this truth about ourselves most poignantly in the character of Jesus Christ. His message is one of peace, charity, modesty and forgiveness – the traits most important to develop when living in a society.
It takes a mighty big stick to beat the selfishness out of us!
Historically, it has been a God sized stick capable to inflicting unimaginable devastation in this life and the hereafter.
Look at the arguments on this board and see how many people cite Pascal's Wager as their reason for faith.
Sociological evolution is leading us away from religion. Not because Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc are negative in and of themselves, but becuase they are necessarily tribalistic and divisive.
You are confusing the two. Atheists simply have no belief in any of the deities that have been created over the years. It is not the abscence of purpose. To say that you need a deity to have purpose is akin to saying you fear going outside without your lucky rabbit's foot. I highly doubt you consult your deity on every single descision you make, yet how could you not since that would be denying its purpose and you never really know which descision you make is going to be the most important one you ever make in your life.
myweight...
The problem with your comparison is that "Christianity" has a ground for their beliefs, and objective standard that determines objective truths and states of correctness or incorrectness.
Atheism claims there is no such thing, science, reason, and math determine all things. Without objective grounding there is no actual things such as "good", "bad", "moral", "immoral", etc. You see, the universe holds no intentionality. It is an inanimate, non living object. It has no intention, it has no real purpose for the actions that take place within it.
On science alone there is no real purpose, intention, or objective in nature. Therefore if you life as an athiest with such thing, you are living contrary to science, reason, and logic. That means you manufacture realities that are not truly the case (oddly enough the same thing atheists charge theists with doing) and living and illogical, irrational, delusional life contrary to what science, math, and logic tell us to be reality.
Domacles,
You are incorrect. If an atheist claims to be living according to science, logic, reason and math, it is the case that there is absolutely no objective, real, intention, purpose, or objective of the universe or anything in it.
To then pretend that things actually do have a real intention, purpose, or objective would be illogical, irrational, and delusions.
For something to be real it must have an objective grounding. Under atheism based solely on science, reason, logic and math, there is no such objective grounding. We are in an accidental universe that has no intention, purpose, or objective. Therefore it cannot create any intention, purpose, or objective in whatever results in the accidental happening of the universe (this includes human beings).
You still don't get it. We do not believe in God. That does not mean we don't have beliefs. You can believe that the whole world would be a better place if everyone was kind. It doesn't take God to think of that. You can believe socialism or capitalism is better for your government, or a mix between. You can believe the the strongest survive, or that helping the weak is a good thing. The only thing you do not believe in, is some god telling you that you have to do it. You did it because YOU ARE a good person, and you choose to be. Not because some other being told you to. No different than christian ( or any other religion) criminals, sure they believe, but that doesn't mean they always follow through. And it doesn't always mean they obey how they were told to by their God.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. I know of no atheist that lives their life based 'solely on math and logic'. Again, you are getting confused on your words.
Everyone lives according to their own standards. You have ensconced your standards in a deity to try and make them somehow higher or better than others, but they are still your standards.
Dale,
I never said atheists don't have beliefs. The problem is that many beliefs that self proclaimed atheists hold to are contradictory to the logical conclusion of a worldview that holds to a universe lacking a real intention, purpose, or objective.
Domacles,
Yes, under atheism everyone does that and that is the only ground of their behavior. The problem with that is that their actions have no actual meaning, purpose, intention, or objective.
They can manufacture their own meaning, purpose, intention, or objective but those things would be irrational, illogical and delusional as they would be contrary to reality.
There is no ground for meaning, purpose, intention, or objective in a universe that is accidental and inanimate (lacking life or ability to think, intend, purpose, set objectives, etc.)
E-Mail said: "For something to be real it must have an objective grounding." That's great to hear. It means you're not real.
Cue,
So we can't know that anything is real? I sure hope you don't live your life with that hyper skepticism. I am quite confident that science can show I exist through testing.
I don't think E-Mail understands mainstream atheism. Otherwise, I don't think E-Mail would be making suppositions like "science, reason, and math determine all things."
E-Mail again asserts the existence of "objective truths" via "Without objective grounding there is no actual things such as "good", "bad", "moral", "immoral", etc."
And again, I say, demonstrate the existence of some objective/moral "truth" without involving subjectivity/consensus. Give it a try.
Doris,
You clearly do not understand the difference between epistemology and ontology.
Human standards.
I'm guessing his own standards, and probably not yours.
Again, the rub. Atheist has no real avenue to say whose standards are better, or worse, and to be the standards for all.
If you hold to a "right" standard on atheism you are choosing to illogically live in a delusional state.
@E-Mail:
I contend, as I did in response to another post below, that all the morals that you are calling objective are simply more morals born out of consensus. Prove me wrong.
Check it Doris. Prove there are no absolutes.
I don't believe either case can be proven. But I find no reason to believe your positive claim – the initial claim that I was addressing. That was my challenge. If the best you can do here is ask for proof in return, that doesn't say much about your ability to defend what you've been using as a basis for arguments with several others.
I already provided proof that absolutes exist. If they don't, you can't claim I have not proven it. Fail on your part.
No, they will treat you like filth no matter how honorable you are. No matter how nice an atheist is, they are considered to be little better than Satan himself, soulless or damned, to be ignored but forcibly converted wherever possible using any tactics, no matter how evil, because they are insane and brainwashed. You cannot expect a reasonable response from unreasonable people like religious slime tend to be.
Your comment is premised on prejudice and judgmental thought processes. Broad brushing is not very tolerant behavior.
"Cognite Intrare" has been a central component of Christian thinking throughout history.
It has been used to justify all manner of atrocities in the name of bringing enlightement.
Many false concepts are pushed that are non canonical and/or are falsely used to justify some negative action.
Human beings lay blame to something other than their own will when bad things happen.
Since I am right about religious nutcases not caring about how "good" or ethical or nice an atheist is, you don't have much of a credible argument there.
You are showing here that you don't even care to find if you are "right" about "religious nutcases". Simply labeling individuals as "religions nutcases" is a form of prejudice and judgmental behavior.
You are harming your own case. Ad hominem is a poor method of argumentation.
"Human beings lay blame to something other than their own will when bad things happen."
Like supernatural influences you mean?
Gods, demons, angels etc. ?
Isn't it odd how often the voice of God commands people to commit heinous acts?
In 2008, He told Boyce Singleton Jr. to shoot and stab his pregnant girlfriend.
Deanna Laney heard God direct her to bludgeon her three sons, aged 9, 6 and 15 months. Only the youngest survived.
Blair Donnelly received instructions to stab to death his 16 year old daughter, Stephanie.
Christopher Varian was slaughtered with a cheese knife after God spoke with one of his employees.
God told Jennifer Cisowski to dash her infant's head on the rocks, so ""Just like Jesus raised Lazarus, I threw the baby on the stones by the pool."
Khandi Busby got a direct message from God advising her that the only way to save her 6 and 8 year old boys was to toss them off a bridge in Dallas. Fortunately, they survived.
Angel Rico says he received a divine command to strangle his 4 year old son, so he did just that and left him at the side of the highway.
Lashaun Harris threw her 3 young kids into the San Francisco Bay after God let her know that He wanted a human sacrifice.
Since nobody has a device capable of intercepting and decoding divine, psychic messages, these people's experiences are no more or less credible than the "divine revelations" given to Abraham, Moses, John who wrote Revelation, Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph Smith.
Doc,
Here is the problem. What is heinous? Under atheism there is nothing that is heinous in reality. Things are just things, they just happen, they have no moral value as there is no real grounding of intentionality, purpose, or objectivity for things that happen in this universe.
If there is an ultimate being that determines what is right and wrong, heinous and not heinous, then those things can exist, but they are also dependent on that standard to find what is heinous. Then it comes down to authority.
By what standard do you claim things are heinous?
I responded to that already in the thread above this one.
You've chosen to ignore it.
Doc,
Unfortunately you did NOT address that at all. You are making claims from a position without a ground. With no objectivity there is no heinous or not heinous.
Your objective ground cannot be subjective. If objective morals exists, how do they exist, where do they exist?
@Email
You didn't read it at all, did you?
The entire point of the explanation of where morality comes from is that moral relativism is a truism.
For example, our culture has a very strong cannibalism taboo, but it cannot be "human nature" to feel repulsed by it as virtually every branch of the human species has praticed it at some point in their development.
The Aztecs believed in transubstantiation. They consumed their human sacrifices in the belief that the dead literally became a part of the God to whom they were given.
Binerwurs in India ate the sick amongst them to please Kali.
The Karankawa, an indigenous Texan tribe, ritualistically consumed their enemies to gain their strength.
The Wari, The Kuru, Fore, Caribs, Fijians, Popayans, Serengipeans, are all fairly modern examples (within the last 500 years).
Most of those culture treated the eating of other humans as a most solemn religious ritual.
I'm thankful that the modern form is limited to wafers and wine!
I would agree that people need something to unify us, but I don't think it can ever be something supernatural.
Any proposition that relies on faith can and will be twisted by unscrupulous individuals for their own gain. Its just far too easy to manipulate those who are willing to suspend critical thinking and accept something without evidence.
In the 21st century we have numerous examples of irreligious governments running successful societies, like Ja/pan, Switzerland and my home, Canada.
Some of our elected officials may be religious, but we expect them to act as Humanists, not religionists.
Ultimately, to survive we must reject the tribalism that is inherent in religions.
@EMail
Look a bit further up and read the bit I wrote that begins
"Morality is a covenant by humans, between humans, that allows us to live together."
Your argument regarding "heinous" misses the mark entirely. People can agree on what is "good" and "bad". For example, an atheist and a theist can agree that killing another human for no reason other than malice is a bad thing. Religious beliefs (or lack thereof) have absolutely nothing to do with morals.
Doc,
You did not show where morality came from at all. You simply describe behaviors of certain groups. You also seem to not understand very much about cannibalism and it's history. Cannibals have traditionally held that it is abhorrent to eat human beings. The problem, they didn't consider the people they ate to be human beings. Of course they all understand that it was wrong to eat humans beings they just different on what they considered a human being (often times anyone outside of your tribe or selected tribe of allies was not considered to be a human being.
Humans doing things to get along does not necessitate that one SHOULD objectively do those things. Subjective morals are, in reality, objectively meaningless, purposeless, and reach no actual objective. Whether they worked together or not, it would make no actual difference in the universe so far as meaning, purpose, and objective.
If there is no objective ground, there is no SHOULD in morals, which then makes morals nothing more than a delusional, illogical, irrational venture endeavored upon by delusional, illogical, and irrational beings.
Cue,
You seem to be missing a very important aspect of authority. If the standards are not objective how is it decided who has the authority to say what should be done, especially in a purposeless, unintentional, universe with no objective or meaning?
Doc,
To embrace human group manufacture morality IS to embrace tribalism. You are the one embracing tribalism while calling out against it.
So was there no morality before the day Moses had a chat with incendiary foliage?
What of the Code of Hammurabi?
There are so many folk who are certain that their God, their church and their interpretation of their holy book is the One Truth... what unmitigated arrogance!
Who is to say that Angus, Belenos, Brigid, dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Thuno, Tir, Weyland, Woden, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Black Shuck, Herne, Jack in the Green, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fu.kurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac, Viracoc.ha, or Zaramama aren't true gods?
How can the Tanakh, Talmud, Midrash, New Testament, Quran, Sunnah, Nahjul Balagha, Avesta, Vedas, Upanisahds, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas, Tantras, Sutras, Vachanas, Adi Granth, Purvas, Samayasara, Niyamasara, Pravacanasara, and Pancastikaya; Anupreksa; Samadhishataka of Pujyapada; Tattvarthasutra of Umasvati, Tattvarthasutra, Pali Tripitaka, Jataka,, Visuddimagga, Tripitaka, Lotus Sutra, Garland Sutra, Analects; the Great Learning; the Doctrine of the Mean; the Mencius, Tao Te Ching, Chuang-tzu, Kojiki, Nihon Shoki, K-oki, Ofudesaki, Mikagura-uta, Michi-no-Shiori, Johrei, Goseigen, Netarean Shower of Holy Doctrines, Chun Boo Kyung, Kitab-i-Iqan, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, Book of Mormon, Dianetics, or Revelation X be dismissed as Holy Books since they all claim to be The Truth?
If you pick the Bible as your source of morality, which version?
American Standard Version, American King James Version, Amplified Bible, An American Translation, ArtScroll Tanakh (Old Testament), An American Translation, Berkeley Version, Bible in English, The Bible in Living English, Bishops' Bible, Catholic Public Domain Version, Children's King James Version, Christian Community Bible, English version, Clear Word Bible, Complete Jewish Bible, Contemporary English Version, Concordant Literal Version, A Conservative Version, Coverdale Bible, Darby Bible, Douay-Rheims Bible, Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision), EasyEnglish Bible, Easy-to-Read Version, English Jubilee 2000 Bible, English Standard Version, Ferrar Fenton Bible, Geneva Bible, God's Word, Good News Bible, Great Bible, Holman Christian Standard Bible, The Inclusive Bible, International Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, Jewish Publication Society of America Version Tanakh (Old Testament), Judaica Press Tanakh (Old Testament), ia E. Smith Parker Translation, King James 2000 Version, King James Easy Reading Version, King James Version, King James II Version, Knox's Translation of the Vulgate, Lamsa Bible, A Literal Translation of the Bible, Leeser Bible, Tanakh (Old Testament), The Living Bible, The Living Torah and The Living Nach. Tanakh (Old Testament), Matthew's Bible, The Message, Modern King James Version, Modern Language Bible, Moffatt, New Translation, James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Pesh.itta, New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Century Version, New English Bible, New English Translation (NET Bible), New International Reader's Version, New International Version Inclusive Language Edition, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society of America Version. Tanakh (Old Testament), New King James Version, New Life Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Quaker Bible, Recovery Version of the Bible, Revised Version, Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, Revised English Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, The Scriptures, Simplified English Bible, The Story Bible, Taverner's Bible, Thomson's Translation, Today's New International Version, Third Millennium Bible, Tyndale Bible, Updated King James Version, A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures, Webster's Revision?
If you're a Bible adherent, how do you know whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, oriental Orthodox, As.syrian, Byzantine, Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Anabaptism, Brethren, Methodist, Pietism, Apostolic, Pentocostal, Charismatic, African Initiated, United, Quakers, Couthcotti.tism, Millerism, British-Isrealism, Latter Day Saints, Mennonite, 7th day Adventism, Kelleyism, Co.oneyism, Shakers, Methernitha, Strigolniki, Yehowism, Christadelphians, Christian Science, doukhobors, Iglesia ni Cristo, Makuya, Molokans, Subbotniks, Ebionism, Martinism, Rosicrucians, Rastafarianism, Santo Daime, or Umbanda is the REAL interpretation of your God's words?
If the One True Deity, shaper of The Universe, wishes their words to be transmitted and adhered to, they should have been a bit less ambiguous. Expecting people to select The Truth out of limitless possibilities on faith alone seems a sloppy way to run things – especially if the punishment for a wrong choice is eternal torment.
Look at my last comment
E-Mail said: "If the standards are not objective how is it decided who has the authority to say what should be done, especially in a purposeless, unintentional, universe with no objective or meaning?" Apparently you missed where I said that two people, regardless of their religious beliefs, can agree on "what should be done". And three people, and 10 people, and 370M people. In other words, the authority comes from agreement, not some imaginary creature. But since you seem to know so much, please tell me: What is the purpose, objective, and meaning of the universe?
Look, I realize you're just a troll trying to play "gotcha", but you clearly do not know what you are talking about. *yawn*
Doc,
It seems you are getting confused between epistemology and ontology. Investigate the difference between those two and you will find that you wasted a few seconds constructing that reply.
If morals are objective they would exist objectively. If they exist, sure they would exist before Moses. God is alleged to exist, in the Abrahamic religions, before Moses existed. So, of course objective morality would exist before Moses. Did they understand it completely? No. Do we understand it completely now, of course not. Human will misunderstand anything. This of course will be clarified when you look into the distinction between epistemology and ontology.
Cue,
So if everyone agrees that something is moral one day, it is moral. If they decide the next day it is immoral, it is immoral? Sounds more like they are confused than anything else, and morality is meaningless as it can change at the drop of the hat.
On atheism there is no intention, purpose, objective, or meaning for the universe. Nihilism is the logical course of action any other form of behavior is delusional, illogical, and irrational.
If you want to be a consistent, logical and rational atheist not guilty of living a delusion, you would be held to live according to nihilism.
@E-Mail:
I contend, as I also did below to another post, that all the morals that you are calling objective are simply more morals born out of consensus. Prove me wrong.
Doris,
Check your other post. Also, your request to be "proven wrong" is stating that it can or cannot be done, meaning one of us is wrong. That can only be the case if there are absolutes.
@EMail
Until recently, slavery was considered natural and moral.
Racism was considered natural and moral.
Society has changed and these things are now considered immoral.
Doc,
That is all well and good. Maybe in 200 year it will be moral again in the minds of human beings. Of course no matter how many times they change their mind, if something is morally wrong it is wrong whether they believe it to be wrong or not.
Again, epistemology and ontology. Check the difference.
@EMail
But if God dictates morality, then slavery has always been ethical and always will be.
So why don't you have any slaves?
E-Mail, you completely avoided my question. Let me try again. Please tell me: What is the purpose, objective, and meaning of the universe?
Doc Vestibule; Thank you for the "So there was no morality before..." comment. Your compiled lists were worth a save to the local HD for future reference and research. Morals evolve in human cultures because we are an intelligent social species concerned with group well being, and morals vary between cultures because cultures were geographically isolated.
Surely this is obvious. If there were an absolute authority morality wouldn't vary as a function of culture and upbringing.
Ari
So wait, those "meany-head Christians" are evil, insane, brainwashed, unreasonable and slime?
Hypocrite. Do you not realize what you are saying?
He isn't necessarily a hypocrite. He may simply be inconsistent or contradictory to his own position. Hypocrisy is not simply the unintentional contradicting of ones held beliefs.
I think all manner of individual need to be very cautious throwing around the hypocrite charge.
Delusional people do not use facts or anything real, nor can they reason things out correctly by definition.
They are delusional. When I point this out you call me a hypocrite? What a laugh.
Bejesus Topher he was just describing you, you should have learned to live with that by now. Where is sam when you need him?
i'm not a Christian but I feel it only fair to point out that not all sects behave that way, but mostly the evangelical groups. Quakers will never try to convert you, and I've never met an Episcopal who tried. I'm guessing your family are Baptists or Pentecostals or something like that?
None of those religions view non-believers as being equal or correct or worthy or anything but damned / "unenlightened" / etc.
She's the same Oprah that teamed up with Bono to sell red iPods, went to a public school, and got upset because all the kids (since they look up to her) wanted iPods. She could have calmly responded to say "How do you get one, by getting a good education and a job" but she instead chose to find a soapbox and set up shop in another country. Which isn't a bad thing, but the string of situations leading to it are a little suspect.
Atheists – easily offended by other people's expressions of faith. It appears to be their soul purpose in life.
Apart from the religious that do nasty things in the name of their religion, often to those who don't toe the line or believe in the same religion. Even the Christians and their Bible talk of doing nasty things to unbelievers.
You mean like making unfounded comments like the comment you just made?
Atheists – easily offended when other people tell the atheist what the atheist thinks.
'sole' not 'soul' dipshit... or was that an intentional misuse of the correct word?...
This article is not about Oprah expressing her faith. It's about her opinion about atheists.
try reading the article.
Some, maybe, but not this atheist. I chose not to abide by the rules and regulations of Christianity when I was four years old. I adopted math and science as my "religions" and don't regret that decision at all. I strive to see the world for what it is – natural processes defined by math and science, not any myth. After the first Planc Second of The Bang, everything can be described and explained by math, physics, checmistry, etc. Nothing can be proven by followers of religion. Everything must be accepted on "faith". That's just not enough for me.
Are you saying that you don't believe in objective moral responsibilities and duties, meaning that there is No reason one SHOULD do anything?
If you do hold that some thing are objectively bad, or objectively good, you are not living by the standard you just stated you are living by.
There is no real purpose to life on science and math. if you live as if you have purpose and intention you life a delusion, which is irrational and unscientific/illogical/opposing reality.
Not a GOP'er,
Do you even know the different between the aspects of slavery 2,000 years ago and the slavery of the more recent centuries? Do you realize that there are different aspects that fall under "slavery" in both those contexts that would not be considered slavery today.
Again, because you misunderstand something, and lack nuance, you make assumptions and false conclusions.
I also find this "consensus" argument wrong because we have many laws and moral decisions decided in the face of the consensus under the claim "this is just the right thing to do". If morality is defined by the consensus it can never be the right thing to do if the consensus does not think it as such.
The only way that things like this can happen, minority positions gaining moral victories, is based on a premise that objective morals exist. It is dependent on a situation where something is "right", or "wrong" regardless of what any number of people think about it. Of course this cannot be the case if morals are subjective and decided by consensus.
@Email
morality is relative. It is not an absolute.
Purpose is what you make of it. We exist. Why not make the best of it? Logic would dictate that is a wiser choice than the alternative.
Actually, if morality is relative there is no SHOULD for anyone and it is irrational and illogical to hold someone responsible for doing something "wrong" as there would be no actual "wrong".
The problem with relativism in morals is that it is self defeating. There is no authority or grounding to determine which individuals morality is better than another.
Logic dictates that relativism defeats itself and contradicts itself at almost every turn. If we decide for ourselves what is "right" or "wrong", why SHOULD we do anything that someone else decides and how is anyone else justified in calling what we self decide to be "right", wrong?
I didn't say morality was individualized. That indeed is meaningless. It is the consensus of conscious for a large group.
It is relative to a society and a time and place – meaning it changes with time, place and society.
Slavery is no longer considered moral. Therefore we have to conclude that morality is NOT absolute.
Seven Things Moral Relativists Can't Do:
#1: Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
#2: Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
#3: Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
#4: Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
#5: Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
#6: Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
#7: Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance
Unfortunately that falls to the same problem. If there is no objective, there is no logical and rational ground to make someone else or some other group do what you or your group feel is correct.
Science, logic, and reason make clear that if there is no objective source of intention, purpose, and objective in the universe, everything that happens is meaningless. No good, no bad, no should, no shouldn't. Nihilism is the end result of atheistic worldview. If you don't life by that logical conclusion of atheism you life a manufactured, illogical, irrational, delusional life (which is strange because that is what atheists claim about theists).
"Slavery is no longer considered moral. Therefore we have to conclude that morality is NOT absolute."
False conclusion. You can also conclude that one got what they thought was moral wrong and morals are still absolute but slavery was never moral.
Or, the individual who say slavery is immoral are incorrect that it is immoral.
Or, the individuals who say slavery is immoral don't understand nuance of situations and wrongly consider things that are not the same "slavery" as they know and falsely think that all things they call "slavery" are the same and are equally immoral.
There are plenty of other possible conclusions as well.
"It is relative to a society and a time and place – meaning it changes with time, place and society."
That's not true. It is true that back in the 1800s, some people thought that slavery was wrong and some thought it was OK. That's still the case today. Now take any case of morality and think about this.
Both people are appealing to some standard outside themselves in the hope that they will be justified. One says "that's not fair" the other says "Yes, it is fair." Now they may disagree on the application of fairness, but neither denies that fairness exists.
So objective morality DOES exists. You're just disagreeing on the application of those objective moral standards.
"You can also conclude that one got what they thought was moral wrong and morals are still absolute but slavery was never moral.
Or, the individual who say slavery is immoral are incorrect that it is immoral."
At best this is equivocation. At worst sophistry.
"So objective morality DOES exists.
From whose point of view? That's why it IS relative.
@anyone
Moral absolutes? (Involving no subjectivity, no human consensus?) I'd like to see that demonstrated.
"#1: Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
#2: Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
#3: Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
#4: Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
#5: Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
#6: Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
#7: Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance"
#1 Of course you can
#2 Agreed. What is the problem of "Evil"? Evil is not some intrisic property. It is just heinously bad behavior.
#3 Now you are being ridiculous
#4 Of course you can
#5 This is just silly
#6 Aren't we doing this now?
#6 Tolerance is the essence of relative morality
Not a GOP'er,
You must not understand what sophistry is, otherwise you wouldn't have thrown that charge out in that context.
You lacked clear thinking in your false conclusion, just own up to it. You conclusion is not the only possible conclusion, therefore we do not "have" to conclude that.
Be more careful with the words you use if you don't understand what they entail in your statements.
Paul: "So objective morality DOES exists."
GOPer: "From whose point of view? That's why it IS relative."
Do you deny that fairness exists?
Do you deny that justice exists?
@Paul
Objectively – as some divine "truth"? No, I don't believe that justice nor fairness exist in that way. No one has demonstrated that to me in any reasonable fashion.
Do you deny that fairness exists?
Do you deny that justice exists?
Of course not.
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
"#1: Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
#2: Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
#3: Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
#4: Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
#5: Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
#6: Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
#7: Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance"
#1 Of course you can
#2 Agreed. What is the problem of "Evil"? Evil is not some intrisic property. It is just heinously bad behavior.
#3 Now you are being ridiculous
#4 Of course you can
#5 This is just silly
#6 Aren't we doing this now?
#6 Tolerance is the essence of relative morality
You've successfully refuted your position that "morality is relative" just by arguing against the points I've made. Pick any one and I'll show you how you refuted you're own position. For starters, I'll pick #6.
If you say that morality is relative, then you can't have any meaningful moral discussions. So you ask, aren't we doing that now? Well, yes, but An ethical discussion involves comparing the merits of one view with those of another to find out which is best. But if morals are entirely relative and all views are equally valid, then no way of thinking is better than any other. No moral position can be judged adequate or deficient, unreasonable, unacceptable, or even barbaric. In fact, if ethical disputes only make sense when morals are objective, then relativism can only be consistently lived out in silence. You can’t even say, “It’s wrong to push your morality on others.”
So just by having this conversation, you refute your position.
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
Paul: Do you deny that fairness exists?
Paul: Do you deny that justice exists?
GOPer: Of course not.
So objective moral standards do exist.
Paul: "But if morals are entirely relative and all views are equally valid"
Not at all, Paul. The keyword here is consensus. Kind of like the consensus that took place when they decide which parts of the Bible to leave in and which parts to leave out.
@Email
Sophistry
Specious but fallacious reasoning; employment of arguments which are intentionally deceptive.
I can only read your words, not your intent and do not know your heart.
Honestly I don't think your intent was to deceive me (or yourself). I still think you are equivocating to fit your assertion that morality can be anything but relative.
Paul: "So objective moral standards do exist."
What is your definition of "objective" here, Paul? You know, to better clarify your position.
Of course moral standards exist. This is self-evident for any society. The fact that they vary in the specifics is evident that they are relative.
They're just not absolute. They are codified in law. Even law is applied subjectively – otherwise we wouldn't need juries or judges.
But if morals are entirely relative and all views are equally valid
This is a tiresome fallacy. Morals are NOT individualized. All views are NOT equally valid. That is not what relative morality means.
Relative morality is the consensus of conscience for a society. A conscience may be individualized, but morals are not. What is important is the notion of consensus.
Doris,
Objective morals would be true whether you, or a large group, believe them to be true or not.
Objective morals would not change based on the thoughts, feelings, and decisions of the subjects to those morals.
Subjective morality can be changed from day to day as the subjects feel so led. These kind of morals are groundless, inconsistent, and ultimately meaningless.
Not a GOP'er,
You are confusing how we enforce moral obligations and duties with the state of moral obligations and duties themselves. That is a detrimental confusion.
@E-Mail:
I contend that all the morals that you are calling objective are simply more morals born out of consensus. Prove me wrong.
@Paul
Words are important here. As Doris asks, what do you mean by "objective".
Morality is not absolute. I do not accept @Email argument. Clearly slavery was considered OK 2,000 years ago. Now it is not. The morals changed. By defintion they are not absolute.
Similarly morality is not absolute. We all agree that murder is wrong, but when is killing acceptable? War, criminal execution, etc? It is very easy to argue both sides of examples of killing in war or executions that are wrong, or depending on a society's point of view, right. We can only conclude that morality is relative.
@Email,
no, I really am not confusing morality with law. I agree that they are quite different, though hopefully there is at least *some* overlap! 😉
There is equal consensus regarding whether a thing is wrong and a thing is right. Both sides are applying moral penalties to the opposing side based on their consensus. This is the self defeating aspect of the consensus society.
It all comes down to authority. Who has the authority to decide which consensus group should hold more power. If morals are subjective, they are purposeless, delusional, illogical, and irrational.
Not a GOP'er,
Do you even know the different between the aspects of slavery 2,000 years ago and the slavery of the more recent centuries? Do you realize that there are different aspects that fall under "slavery" in both those contexts that would not be considered slavery today.
Again, because you misunderstand something, and lack nuance, you make assumptions and false conclusions.
I also find this "consensus" argument wrong because we have many laws and moral decisions decided in the face of the consensus under the claim "this is just the right thing to do". If morality is defined by the consensus it can never be the right thing to do if the consensus does not think it as such.
The only way that things like this can happen, minority positions gaining moral victories, is based on a premise that objective morals exist. It is dependent on a situation where something is "right", or "wrong" regardless of what any number of people think about it. Of course this cannot be the case if morals are subjective and decided by consensus.
@EMail
Biblical slavery came in two flavours.
Indentured servitude, which was reserved only for fellow Hebrews, and the more commonly understood "modern" slavery wherein people were property to be used as you see fit.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.
. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
@Email,
Doc answered the point you attempted to make on slavery very nicely. Not all the slavery referenced in the Bible is the 'indentured servant' kind. 2,000 years ago what you and I think of as "slavery" was present and considered acceptable, not just by pagans but the Jewish tradition as well.
Now it's not. You really cannot argue that it really is absolute and immutable and that people just misunderstood it.
@GOPer
But he can and will.
Remember – anything from the Bible that appears contradictory, absurd or immoral is either
1) Taken out of context
2) A translation error
3) A metaphor
4) The ineffable Way of God that must be accepted on faith.
@Email,
(When) There is equal consensus regarding whether a thing is wrong and a thing is right. Both sides are applying moral penalties to the opposing side based on their consensus. This is the self defeating aspect of the consensus society.
Agreed. It is however our reality. This is of course why topics like abortion are such a difficult issue. There are people who make a good argument that it is wrong and people who make a good argument that inferred rights of the unborn are superseded by existing rights of the living. As a society we are divided on this topic because a strong consensus is not present.
Some states permit criminal execution, some states do not. We have no moral consensus on that topic either. Both cases are illustrations of moral relativism.
It is empirically obvious that morals are not absolute.
You still haven't shown anything to make the claim that slavery is suddenly immoral because mankind decides it is immoral. You seem to be, again, unable to grasp what objective means.
Not a GOP'er,
If you support abortion you support slavery. The fetus is made slave to the mother. I guess if you think abortion is morally acceptable, you think slavery is morally acceptable.
Hmm...
I read so much narrow mindedness by some commentors that I must recognize their god is ignorance and their alter is intollerance.
Alter? C'mon.
Not to mention "intollerence" and "commentors"...
Ignorance, ignorance, who's got the ignorance, @Iam?
'Alter' just struck me. I could give them a slight pass on the others, but that was like 10,000 fingernails trailing lazily down a chalkboard.
I hear ya', Damocles, I often let a lot of them go, but when someone is casting aspersions about the ignorance of others, while blaring it themselves, I sometimes can't resist...
After an awesome earthquake destroyed my home, and injured my neigbors, and killed many people on a nearby freeway, I asked it, are you evil?
No answer was the stern reply.
Atheist response to pain and death is to assume Goods is evil. This.makes you an authority on death and pain? Do you discipline your children when they do something wrong?
You say God did not answer. Did the sun rise in the morning. Your thoughts on death being evil have no philosophical or logic substance. Did you think the parents of friends were evil because they took your friends home. Your reaction is purely emotive
Seriously, Doug? Yes, I punish my kids when they do something wrong. What I don't do is go around murdering the neighborhood kids because one of my kids broke curfew.
These parent/child ana-logies never work.
No, atheists don't assume I'm evil. I would have to exist before I could be evil and that would (by definition) mean that anyone who thinks I'm evil is not an atheist.
Atheists are only right when I'm having a crisis of consciousness and don't really believe in Myself, either.
"But when I explain that atheism is central to my worldview — that I am in awe of the natural world and that I believe it is up to human beings, instead of a divine force, to strive to address our problems — they often better understand my views, even if we don’t agree."
I agree with this article in general. I have been on both sides of the fence though I don't consider myself religious but spiritual. My core belief is that there is a devine force but that devine force doesn't magically fix everything for me. It is up to every individual to take responsibility for their actions and walk the path they choose. So, as much as I liked this article, I felt equally bundled into a group that I didn't care to be bundled with much like the central issue surrounding this article..
Your belief sounds like Deism. There is a lot of confusion over the label atheism.
It seems like the greatest consensus is those people who don't believe in a God or higher power. Many believers in a 'higher spiritual power' that is not an anthropomorphic God would consider themselves Deists.
"Nyad told Winfrey that she feels a similar sense of awe:
“I think you can be an atheist who doesn’t believe in an overarching being who created all of this and sees over it,” she said. “But there’s spirituality because we human beings, and we animals, and maybe even we plants, but certainly the ocean and the moon and the stars, we all live with something that is cherished and we feel the treasure of it.”
I find this odd coming from someone who denies the possibility or probability of a deity, and embraces a system that touts its adherence to science and reason, can make the claim that "certainty the ocean and the moon and the stars... live with something that is cherished and feel the treasure of it".
So far as science and reason know, the ocean, moon, stars, etc. are inanimate and lacking any kind of life aspect. They cannot feel anything in that sense.
Atheists feel the same sense of awe and wonderment of the world around us and the universe as believers.
Believers use the word "spirituality" for this feeling and attribute the concepts of beauty, love, nobility, altruism, etc as manifestations of the divine. Non-belivers have all the same feelings, we just don't attribute them to God.
In English we don't have words for this that do not have metaphysical connotations, so the problem is one of semantics.
I know they feel such things. The problem is that their stand on reason, logic, and science does not allow them to ascribe traits and feelings of living things to inanimate and non living objects like the moon, sea, stars, etc.
The moon, sea, stars, etc. do NOT feel the same emotions and thoughts of awe that we do. It is atrocious that Nyad would claim they do, especially as an atheist.
"Ineffable" and "sublime" come to mind.
I think it's only the Jedis who think they can spiritually commune with rocks and non-living things.
Oceans and stars and mountains etc are part of the universe in which we find wonder and awe.
You want to know what "god" is? I'll tell you.
God = Santa Claus for Grown Ups. "If you do what I say, you will get XYZ..." It is mind control, pure and simple.
Man created "God" – not the other way around.
The earth is round people, not flat. Believe in science, not fiction.
"God = Santa Claus for Grown Ups."
So you don't believe that Nickolaus of Myra actually existed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_of_Myra
The modern day Santa Claus is just a distortion of a real life person from history.
"Man created "God" – not the other way around. "
How did you come to that conclusion?
"In a 100 years, God fearers will be in the same category as flat earthers."
Yet another atheist that either hasn't heard or refuses to accept the flat earth myth. That lie was started by 2 college professors who cited a fictional book as fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_myth
"If there were no god, there would be no atheists."
– G. K. Chesterton
Atheists actually confirm the existence of God.
Really? So the lack of belief in something confirms its existence?
To a delusional dipfuck like Paul, the real world will always confirm the lies he believes. It's called confirmation bias.
You don't simply lack a belief about something as an atheist. Atheism is the affirmative claim that god or gods do not and/or cannot exist.
You surely do hold some belief about god, otherwise the time wouldn't be taken to call oneself an atheist.
@e-mail
So your definite and firm stance that there are no pink unicorns with eight strands of purple hair in their manes actually means that there are pink unicorns with eight strands of purple hair in their manes?
@Email
So what signs of disease are showing in someone who is asymptomatic?
Is an apolitical person democrat or republican?
"A" – lack of
"Theism" – belief in gods.
A + Theism = lack of belief in gods.
That's it, that's all. It is a negative statement that implies no worldviews, ethics, morals, beliefs or other characteristics whatsoever.
Damocles,
I made no such claim that because one does not believe in something it proves that thing exists. That was another poster.
My claim is simply that the claim "I have no believe about that thing I don't believe exists" is a false claim. Someone that believes a god or gods does not or cannot exist holds a belief on the matter.
Doc,
So you don't have any belief in god or gods at all? If you say that a god or god does not and/or cannot exist, you hold a belief on the matter.
From you definition of atheism, if you think a god or god does not and/or cannot exist, you are not an atheist.
Of course we both know that the definition of atheism is not as rigid as you would like to proclaim it and we both know that when one says a god or gods does not and/or cannot exist, they make it clear they DO hold a belief about god or gods.
I think you need to build a truth table there, Sport.
However, if someone does claim that God does not exist, then an instance of God is created. So, in a sense, God does then exist. You probably wouldn't be satisfied by that instance of God. God may only exist as an idea that is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
Just the Facts Ma'am...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
OMG! LMAO!!!
While the artist's depection was intriguing, it didn't take more that 2-3 seconds for me to decide:
1. If the model is correct, no-one will ever know because if they walk away from the center of the flat earth while on Antarctica, they will most surely fall off and never been seen again! Let's get some rope and tie ourselves to it and walk towars the edge to see where the first one in line falls off. Anybody with me?
2. Now if the model were two sided, with Antarctica covering the entire underside, like a discus, then it could work. Unfortunately, Antarctica is not big enough to cover the distance required, and isn't a discus what might result if you flatten a golbe?
One worthy intellectual notion that struck me looking at the model, is that it seems to reveal that Pangea is much more likely than the Globe models we have indicate.
In all seriousness, while I do not know those who believe in the Flat World, it seems to me that if they have a lifestyle like the hay days of The Great Gatsby, then they are all laughing their drunken butts off!
AMEN! Hallelujah!
If there were no Poseidon, there would not be people who don't believe in Poseidon. People who don't believe in Poseidon actually prove that there is a Poseidon.
This can be said of any god. So the idea that there is only one true god is disproven by the disbelievers in all the other gods.
I do not believe in unicorns. therefore unicorns must exist.
Wow, I will totally pray for you; among many others on this blog...
Sure, pray for us.
Meanwhile, naturalists will continue to advance our understanding of the ways in which the universe works and apply that understanding to improvements in technology that add to our quality of life.
How does one go about praying for a screen name?
And I will hope that you can join the sane and educated in the 21st century
But it was science that taught that the earth was flat.
Actually, it's the other way around. The Bible states the earth is round. "It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in." Isaiah 40:22
A circle is flat.
TruthbeTold,
– It says "circle", not globe, sphere or ball, for which the Hebrews did have words – they did not use those words to describe the Earth.
– People look the size of grasshoppers when viewed from around a thousand feet (or so) alti'tude – just like if the author(s) had viewed them from the Judean hills/mountains.
– Looking up at the ceiling of a tent and comparing it to the sky – meh!
Completely false. Don't make us do your homework for you; look into ancient Greek or Egyptian astronomy.
Can science tell you why birds migrate south in the winter? Can science tell you how the big bang happened or what started the big bang? Can science tell you why things in your body happen the way they do? No, they can tell you how, but not why. I'm a Christian that believes in science whole heartedly, but science and religion aren't answering the same questions
True. In fact, science can only speak to how and cannot speak to why. Based on atheistic worldview paired with science and math, there is no real intention, purpose, or objective in life.
....in their LIFE
That's because the concept of "why" is an abstraction (a subjective interpretation).
Why is not necessarily subjective. It is dependent on an objective grounding position. You can objectively know why something happened while still having others who subjectively, wrongly, believe something contrary to that objective reason why.
Science is constantly being refined to help us with what we eventually accept as knowledge. Religious belief is a lot of guessing and leaping where the beliefs can be subjectively tailored to satisfy one's own comfort much in the way that a child needs a blanket.
Science is being refined because it is imperfect and determined by imperfect humans! Really just to be a distraction from the TRUTH!
Prove any objective truth – if you dare. Go ahead. (No subjectivity allowed now – don't cheat. Snicker.)
Wrong, I created science for you domesticated primates as a process for understanding the rest of my Creation and that's best accomplished when you do it yourselves. Guess it was too complicated. My bad. Time to push the "big asteroid" reset button I suppose. Y'all have 19 more years to develop Warp Drive or I swear to Myself that I'm gonna drop 99942 Apophis on the lot of you.
Doris,
Two different mutually exclusive things cannot be the same mutually exclusive thing as each other.
Your post is not true. (If absolutes exist, your post would be false, if no absolutes exist, your post cannot be true.
WOW! I thought Atheists prided themselves on their critical thinking?
Hm... let me see, the last man who was seriously thought to be God incarnate was murdered. There are many thousands, possibly millions, of human beings throughout the last two millennia who were also murdered because they believed in Christ or God. Entire families were put to death because they believed in Christ or God. So what makes you think that you know what the most devout sects of those who believe in Christ or God are doing or thinking or who they are? Atheists like to take on the worst examples of those who believe in Christ or God, which is very much like being abusive towards a child.
I do not "believe" in God, I know that God exists and that God is Eternal. Your Atheism doesn't shake my knowledge because you cannot change something that I know to be true, because I have experienced it first hand, not just read something or heard something about it. Imagine if I tried to tell you that you are not really alive, or that you do not actually live on Earth, or that there really isn't a universe. You would dismiss me out of hand like I was a lunatic.
I try to be more gracious when I look at the individuals who do not do the personal spiritual work to realize and actually interact with God. They are the ones who are self centered, not those who believe in something greater than themselves. If you were drowning and all you had to do was reach for your potential rescuer’s hand, wouldn't you seem insane for not reaching out to him? Atheists are in fact spiritually insane. They also believe that if you can't prove something to them, then it does not exist.
Here is a short list of things that based upon the Atheist ideology, they must believe do not exist because the Atheist can't prove to anyone else that they do exist for them, personally.
1. Feeling good
2. Orgasms
3. Enjoy life
4. Happiness
5. A sense of self worth
6. That thought is a function or product of the fact that we have a brain
7. That you are smarter than I am
8. That there is something wrong with knowing God exists
9. That there is only "faith" and no true knowledge of God or interaction with God
10. Most importantly, you cannot prove that there is death of self-awareness, spirit, soul simply because the body dies
Since you like the analogy of the believer needing a blanket, much of the comments of the Atheists look like they are jealous and angry because they don't have their own blanket. Very childish!
When your body dies, you are going to realize that you still exist. That is going to contradict all that you have believed, and you can only believe that your spirit dies, not know it while in corporeal form, because you cannot prove that your sense of existing dies with the body. The fact that many Atheists think existing after biological death would be hell is a self-fulfilling "prophecy."
I think the fact that there is good reason to live a spiritual life, as evidenced by all religious texts, and develop the knowledge of and humility towards God is just too much work for the Atheists. The fact that Atheists indicate that spending time thinking about their soul in relation to Eternity and God would be an embarrassingly silly thing to do, is going to resound in their horror when they realize that even they have a soul, and it is not part of their flesh, and existed before they were born, and will also exist after their body dies. I will, or reality will, prove this to you personally, but not until you die of whatever natural or other accidental, or disease, etc. causes end your body's life. So by your own Atheist ideology we can prove you to be silly because you believe that your sense of self dies when your body dies because you cannot prove it!
Judgmental, or immature, or wrong-headed "believers" are the least of the worries of the Atheists. Atheists like to call themselves the adult in the room, but they are going to realize that spiritually they wasted their life, and will be lost without a compass when they die. I don't hate them, and I do not feel sorry for them. Atheism will ultimately be punishment enough to change them in the end.
May God Forgive them.
Doris, since your science is so infallible and only deals in facts prove how an electron does what it does and how it is that it is similar but different in atoms of different elements. Trust me, you cannot, and even if you think you can, you cannot show that you are correct through the scientific method. You can only explain what and electron does, and not how it does it. That is simply observation and does not reveal anything truly scientific. In fact it is very fitting to know that the only thing science can do to the inner workings of an atom that the atom doesn't do itself for inexplicable reasons, is destroy it.
Ric H: Modern Physics and Chemistry is not your forte' nor is science.
Proof is reserved for the science of mathematics.
Questions of "why" is is the realm of theology.
Certainty is the realm of measurement and prediction is the realm of theory.
We have a pretty darn good mathematical model and theory that describes the behavior electrons in elemental atoms and other subatomic particles in nature.
Quantum theory predicts outcomes that can be measured and verified to a known degree of certainty.
You are presenting a "god of the gaps" argument.
Exact mechanisms will be known when the questions that can be tested have been asked.
Prediction of outcomes will suffice until mechanisms are established.
As a species we've had less than a century to explore the issues of quantum physics and let me remind you that what we know for sure is that you have a computing device based upon solid state electronics and the control of the flow of electrons.
"Science can't answer how..." is the same argument as "Man will never fly..."
Harrumph and horse feathers sir, we will answer questions in the due course of time, not because of religion but in spite of it!
Because we understand the shape of orbitals we can predict the structure of chemical compounds and crystals.
The above story by Mr Stedman seems more like a sad story about being once again misunderstood than it does about "What Oprah got wrong." Oprah has faith and believes, and so she will never understand atheists. I am an atheist. It seems that the best that Oprah can do is think that atheists are wrong. What Mr Stedman seems to be asking is that she not do that. If, instead of saying that atheists are wrong, Oprah could simply say she disagrees, that would be a small step in the right direction.
I think you're missing the point that Oprah tried to explain to Nyad what Nyad believes, without actually listening to what Nyad was saying.
No one has the right to define for another person what they believe.
Well said.
There are billions of people on this planet and everyone sees creation a little differently than the person next to them. No two of us are exactly the same. Just don't expect the person standing next to you to be just like you. What a boring world that would be. I'm am not a religious person. But I can sense love in the universe. That's the path I have chosen.
The love that you sense – where does that love come from?
It obviously comes with the beer this idiot drinks. Just a chemical reaction once again. Alcohol is for alcoholics. pfui
Oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin.
@Paul,
it's a good question. Clearly notions of love, beauty, nobility, awe of the universe are part of the human condition. What creates these concepts in our brain?
To the believer they are manifestations of the divine. To the non-believer they indicate that we still have a long way to go in understanding how our brains work.
Great article. My sentiments exactly.
This is just silly. Oprah doesn't get to redefine the word "atheist" so she can feel better about people who don't believe in any gods. Lack of belief in such things does not mean we don't find awe and wonder in the world. It's arrogant of her to try to speak for an entire group of people. But I'm sure people will still fork over their hard earned $ to her for a little "super soul sunday" even if it doesn't make sense.
Bingo
Most humans are absolutely TERRIFIED of the idea that there is no meaning to their lives or an afterlife. They won't face the fact that our existence equates to ameobas living on a rock. I suppose if fantasizing about an imaginary father figure helps go thru life... go for it – just don't expect me to buy into it
Life has the meaning we give to it.
Insisting that it doesn't if a person doesn't believe in a god is simply wrong.
So what is the meaning of life?
Chairman: Item six on the agenda, the Meaning of Life. Now Harry, you’ve had some thoughts on this.
Harry: That’s right, yeah. I’ve had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we’ve come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One, people are not wearing enough hats. Two, matter is energy. In the Universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person’s soul. However, this soul does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man’s unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
[Pause.]
Max: What was that about hats again?
I can't define that for you.
For me, the meaning is in helping others, in bettering myself (my skills, my ability to reason, my interactions with others), in finding joy and beauty in the world around me.
I find purpose in service. I find happiness in making others happy. I find joy in making lives better.
What is the meaning of your life?
42
To LIVE of course! I think people really try to make it too complicated sometimes...