Post moved back to top for additional comments.
An answer to those who ask how can you be moral and teach morality without religion. Sounds like it’s pretty easy when you skip the fear and shame and other negatives used by some religions to enforce morality.
“When you have kids,” says Julie Willey, a design engineer, “you start to notice that your co-workers or friends have church groups to help teach their kids values and to be able to lean on.” So every week, Willey, who was raised Buddhist and says she has never believed in God, and her husband pack their four kids into their blue minivan and head to the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto, Calif., for atheist Sunday school.
An estimated 14% of Americans profess to have no religion, and among 18-to-25-year-olds, the proportion rises to 20%, according to the Institute for Humanist Studies. The lives of these young people would be much easier, adult nonbelievers say, if they learned at an early age how to respond to the God-fearing majority in the U.S. “It’s important for kids not to look weird,” says Peter Bishop, who leads the preteen class at the Humanist center in Palo Alto. Others say the weekly instruction supports their position that it’s O.K. to not believe in God and gives them a place to reinforce the morals and values they want their children to have.
>>Okay… Now you are getting personal.
>>You take that back!
OK, that was a low blow. I apologize. Everybody likes to fire up a doobie now and then 🙂
#127 – Atheists, on the other hand, BELIEVE that God does not exist.
You are a liar.
>>WE ARE TAKING IT UP WITH THEM! It’s just that
>>they can’t respond because you are answering
>>with your circular and ignorant bullshit about
>>atheism being a religion.
What, the DU server has such limited bandwidth that they can’t post? And you keep addressing your whining about naughty Cristians to **ME**, not to Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard. Why is that? You seem to think that I support them.
>>The only thing I or anyone else here
>>has ever accused you of is not owning
>>a dictionary.
I own a wide variety of dictionaries, in a variety of different languages. And they all seem to support MY definitions of atheist, agnostic, “secular/ non-religious”, etc. One reference work that I do not own is The Atheists’ Bible. Perhaps that’s where you are getting your definitions from?
And no need to “pretend” that Atheism is a religion, or that its proselytizers are clergy in the church. To anyone who can read (and is not overcome with defensiveness at being told he or she belongs to a religion), it’s self-evident.
>>You are a liar.
Tsk. Methinks the Lover doth protest too much.
#138 – I still have to ask (I didn’t see anyone answer my question) — what is the ethical framework in atheism for morality?
There is none because atheist is a noun that literally translates from the Greek as “without god” and is defined in English as something on the order of “one who does not accept the claim that God exists.”
Beyond that, there is no dogma, morality, rules, agenda, or anything…
…but perhaps there should be. Since we are in a war, it might be nice to organize against the Christian hordes gathering at civilization’s gate.
#154 – Why is that? You seem to think that I support them.
Go back and read every thing I ever wrote about you… outside of this stupid argument, I am almost always in agreement with you and you are just too bullheaded to know it. And I am under no delusion that you are in any way analogous to Jimmy Swaggart or any of that ilk.
The reason that this argument always gets so hot with me is that you are not the corner preacher of fire and brimstone shorting “whore” at girls who commit the sin of wearing shorts in summer, and insisting that everyone else is damned to hell for whatever arbitrary reason his fucked up mind can dream up.
There is a big chunk of the right wing of Christianity who salivates for the day when the rule of law is lifted from America so they can live out their dreams of establishing a Taliban like police force to enforce God’s law on the rest of us, with impunity.
THAT is my religious belief. THAT is my greatest fear. And THAT is supported by their own words and actions.
Right wing extremism is what I attack. And you know that extremism is dangerous as well as I do, but you’d rather argue with us about what “atheist” means than to lend voice to the idea of actually protecting our culture and our freedom, including the freedom of religion.
Do you really think this emerging fundamentalist God squad will tolerate Catholics or Jews or Muslims or Believers in the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster?
You acting like a fool is annoying to me because I know you are not a fool.
Unless, of course, you really think that I really think you support the Haggards and Swaggarts of the world. In which case, you are about as big a fool as a fool can be.
>>but you’d rather argue with us about what
>>“atheist” means than to lend voice to the idea
>>of actually protecting our culture and our
>>freedom, including the freedom of religion.
It takes two to tango, m’hijito, and it seems there’s no death of people here who are willing to argue to the grave over the meaning of “atheism” and whether or not it’s a religion.
Other than that, we are in agreement. And I do my part, from local politics to national voting to letters-to-the-editor to bitching and moaning on DU, to protect our culture and our freedom from religious extremists, as well as xenophobic, intolerant, hypocritical hatemongers of every variety.
Being a Buddhist myself and formerly an Atheist as well as Agnostic through my life, I understand the desire for such an organization.
Ignorance is a bad thing and many churches (not all) do not give children the chance to explore other philosophies. I had to wait until I was a disenfranchised adult. Then it took me nearly 10 years to find a way of living that worked for me.
If this organization and others teach a worldly and open approach to philosophy and beliefs, then great. If they do not they are really no better than their secular counter-parts.
#141
Again, wow. Just wow. It’s like talking to a flat-earther.
Let’s read your little passage again with emphasis added:
“For the purposes of this list, this grouping also includes more proactive or well-defined philosophies such as secular humanism, atheism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, freethought, etc., Most (T: meaning NOT ALL) of which can be classified as religions in the sociological sense, albeit secular religions. A minority among atheists are quite fervent in their beliefs and actively endeavor to proselytize atheism.”
So let’s review the Mr. Mustard-English dictionary (English:Mr. Mustard-speak)
Athiest: Non-religious/secular
Anti-theist: Atheist
Note that “anti-theist” does not (yet) exist in the modern lexicon. Thus, the “minority of atheists are quite fervent in their…” statement refers to this group. Since there is no modern word to describe them, they simply described the group itself.
Non-religious/secular : Uncommitted/non-traditionalist
Note that this says nothing about their belief or disbelief in the god claim. Rather it is simply a statement that they do not regularly go to religious ceremonies nor regularly think about the religion.
If you use the above map and then take what everyone has been trying hammer into your head on this and other blog posts, you will see that it all makes sense. Thus when everyone sees the statement:
“Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”
You should read that as
“Non-religious/secular is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”
and magically it will might make sense to you.
#158 – Your blind spot is duly noted. If we are in agreement, wouldn’t it stand to reason that you’d want to clean up your own house?
You can live under the bullshit delusion that I represent “xenophobic, intolerant, hypocritical hatemongers of every variety” if you like.
All that tells me is that you aren’t listening.
Now… Thomas is talking… You should listen to him because now there is a thread with a Zardoz graphic on it and I think I wanna have this same dumb debate over there now.
Christ, Tommie, you would try the patience of a saint.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to give up on you, and leave you standing lonely and forlorn in your “atheism is not a religion” dungeon.
No matter how simple I try to make it for you, and no matter how many of your fellow Atheologists abandon you, you just won’t listen to reason.
I give up.
#162 – Ladies and gentleman…
I’m afraid I’m going to have to give up on you, and leave you standing lonely and forlorn in your “atheism is not a religion” dungeon.
No matter how simple I try to make it for you, and no matter how many of your fellow Atheologists abandon you, you just won’t listen to reason.
In psychology, this is what is known as projection.
>>Ladies and gentleman…
>>
>>In psychology, this is what is
>>known as projection.
And this is what is known, Sigmund, as denial.
#164 – My point is obviously stronger than yours because I used bold and italics.
>>My point is obviously stronger than yours
>>because I used bold and italics.
I don’t know how to use bold and italics, so I guess you win!
#166 Mister Mustard, some of us rely on technical knowledge for bold and italics, while others merely pray in vain to their gods for those effects 😉
>>Mister Mustard, some of us rely on technical
>>knowledge for bold and italics, while others
>>merely pray in vain to their gods for those
>>effects 😉
As I have said before, I don’t think that praying for personal or financial gain is a worthwhile endeavor.
And, science-lover that I am, as soon as somebody shows me the technically correct way to insert bolding and italics, I’m up off my knees and inserting the proper codes.
#168 – And, science-lover that I am, as soon as somebody shows me the technically correct way to insert bolding and italics, I’m up off my knees and inserting the proper codes.
You aren’t a TRUE science-lover, or you’d understand the complex scientific HTML code for bold and italics.
Use “” and you’ll have italics
after the italicized text, add a “/” before the “i” and you’ll close the italics.
Substitute “b” for “i” and you have bold.
I’d actually give examples but the page would parse them and just apply the tags and you wouldn’t see them.
I’m going to submit now… let’s see if the actually show up.
Well… those empty quotes have greater than and less than sideways arrows in them but the dumb page treated them like tags and I don’t know how to avoid that… 🙁
#168, if I’ve done this correctly, you could copy exactly what you see below, and paste it into the comment box for the desired effects. These are the times when we wish there were a preview capability (I’m using special codes to show the brackets you have to use for the HTML tags)
<i>(text to be italicized)</i>
<b>(text to be bolded)</b>
And yanking your chain aside, I’ve never doubted your willingness to rely on science and technology.
Well, let’s see if this works.
Hot damn! I sure hope this works.
And I wish that the dvorak dot com editor would take a tip from gmail; it’s a heck of a lot easier to do this with editors like that one.
Heh. I’m liberated.
I’m an atheist an dislike the idea of it being a religion and think atheist Sunday school is really stupid idea.
But atheists are also a very segmented lot varying from scientific atheists like myself all the way to religion hating atheists and then to identity crisis atheists.
The reality is, one of the best things about Christianity is teaching children morals, but this is also one of the worst things as well since some of the “morals” are a little dubious.
I do not believe a child can be an atheist, btw and think it is ridiculous to push children to that.
For most, atheism is a well-considered conclusion and children simply are not old enough to make any sort of educated decision.
Let kids be kids.
I’m not sure I believe everything the Time magazine article says. This is the very first time I’d ever heard that Budhists didn’t believe in a god. But I’m not going to address that point, just now.
The “fear and shame and other negatives used by some religions to enforce morality” is often a distortion of these basic religions. Essentially, their stewards got lazy. And rather than teaching what was really at the basis of their religion, they whistled up demons and punishments. There’s also the possibility that some students of a faith, who just didn’t care, ended up with positions that they didn’t earn or merit, because of politics or nepotism. And their uninspired and unlearned views became gospel, at some point. It’s not surprising that such corruptions have snuck into most major religions, over time. It’s more surprising that these religions have managed to hold up as well as they have. Mediocrity hasn’t crush their spirit completely.
However. I’ve come to wonder if much of these distortions haven’t become used as tools of propaganda by the military industrial complex? There’s always this the justification of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, in the name of some distorted interpretation of any favored belief system.
It’s probably fairly obvious to most of us that there aren’t 72 virgins awaiting the martyrs of Islam. And I seriously doubt that Christians believe that Jesus would approve of what we’re doing to Iraqi prisoners, just to gather a little bit intel. But they’re kept ignorant of these facts to they don’t get upset. Just as the Islamics aren’t told everything so they’ll be militant.
The religions aren’t bad, they’re just being misused by those who stand to profit the most from their distortions. And unfortunately, the corruption has spread backward into the leadership of many of the beliefs. They’ve done a deal with the devil, in order to get a stronger voice (they think) over their competition. But actually, they’re just being played against each other, to benefit those with the most power. It’s what the Kings of olde use to do. They got themselves declared devine (or the monks and priests would perish). And then they’re land grabbing wars were justified as God’s work.
The chief militants are never going to allow atheism (or any other pacifist beliefs) to predominate, for fear that it will weaken their warmongery hold over their subjects. And I’m sure the Time article is heavily biased against the athiests. That’s why I think they’ve misrepresented the Budhist views. They’d like to label everything they don’t like as “Godless”. They did that with Cuba. Yet they have Churchs all over, down there. Rent “Sicko” and watch the extras part called “Sister Mary Fidel”. That short subject alone is telling of how everything has been distorted by the politicians and the media.
BTW, my favorite martial arts movie (Circle of Iron) has this really interesting link to a webpage explaining a lot of its philosophy. I know, it’s a lot of reading. But after just a little browse, it can really change how you see the world’s ideas of morality and materialism. I’ve seen the movie a dozen times, and even I learned something new from reading it. Especially concerning the realm of Chang Sha. Here’s the link.
http://jahtruth.net/flute.htm
I have never understood how Christianity managed to wash the medieval blood off their hand and re-invent themselves as the eternal keepers of the ethical values of the ancient greek.
Greek philosophy is where we can trace most of moral values to, not the old testament, which is about the same age.
The argument that without a christian god, there would be no reason to be ethical is plain wrong and, I would say, even propaganda.
pj
I’m not quite sure why ethics and morals are being equated with religion in a good bit of the discussion. Ethics and morals are taught by society as a whole in order to promote the society and keep it from fragmenting. When differing groups within a society have alternate ethics and morals, there is always discord, usually leading to either one group being destroyed/disenfranchised or the two groups shifting apart enough to keep their individual societies separate.
Religion and Atheism (and whatever people want to call whatever else is being talked about) use THEIR moralism and ethics to promote THEIR versions of how THEIR society should work.
Thus, when it comes to morals and ethics, it doesn’t matter what religion or non-religion you are talking about, the two are SOCIETAL requirements. Even anarchic societies must have SOME ethics or morals at some level, otherwise THEY break down completely.
Thus, the original article’s discussion of the bringing together of Atheists’ children to teach morals and ethics makes perfect sense and is completely within a societal framework that should work for those children and their families. IF those children later in life choose to become religious, it will be their choice to rein in their lives and merge with a herd instead of the pack. It’s much harder to break from a herd than to join one.
I just found it interesting that one poster was suggesting Atheists would have no “profit” in having a stable society. However, a stable human society is a requirement for “Humanity” to function. Thus, the “profit” of having morals and ethics for either society is to be able to live with other “different” humans in relative peace and debate deniable non-facts with impunity.
Now, would Atheism be able to generate its own society completely separate from Religious societies and continue it?
71,
WOW, thats a Neet thought..
Just because someone SAYS they are christien/catholic/hebrew/WHAT EVER…has never stopped them from SCREWING/SHOOTING/CUSSING/KILLING…
AND just because you MADE them go to church, dont MEAN that they THINK the WAY the bible or other teaching SAY.
WAIT for them to grow UP enough to DECIDE for themselves.
Iv seen many that RELIGION just confused them.
Until you have Experienced EACH AND EVERY religion and belief, I dont think ANY of you should have an opinion…AT LEAST get 3-4 that you have LIVED, before you can condemn, or JUDGE/DESCRIBE ANYONE.
1. CHRIST said you shall NOT Judge, least YEE, Be Judged.
2. would you Live 1 day in another’s shoes? only to find them MORe comfortable, THAT surly would condemn you.
3. Live your life, as you wish. FIND your belief in yourself, and your journey.
Wow Ok I have always thought this to be way simpler then everyone makes it out to be.
1. Morality
“Do unto Others as you would have do unto you.”
2. Faith
What you believe when there is no factual proof.(Lots of options lots on conflict must adapt as new facts are uncovered.)
3. Traditions
Stuff you do cause everyone else you know does it and always has.
These seem to be the main things that make up what we call religion. However if we all agree with #1 then we should be able to be tolerant of what people do with 2 or 3.
Now, let me see if I’ve got this right. You have put this story back to the TOP in order to get more comments? If you can do THAT so easily, then why don’t you put the comments field at the BOTTOM? THAT’S what you SHOULD BE DOING!