Korean Job Discussion Forums

[uberscheisse]

[the_beaver]

[Julius]

[Rteacher]

The atheist's position is perfectly OK - as long as there is no God.

Of course, there are different categories of atheists, and some are more offensive to God than others.

Atheists who basically follow laws of God (whether they acknowledge a Supreme Person or not) and who refrain from making offenses to God (or his sincere followers) probably won't be any worse off (if there is a God) than those who claim to be followers but engage in unnecessary killing and other sinful acts.

Although religions - like most everything in this world - tend to get corrupt and exploitative, the militant anti-theist position of wanting to wipe out all religion would almost certainly make things worse from a functionalist sociological point of view.

A viable religious institution is needed for developing a moral consensus/equilibrium with other societal institutions. Materialistic science would almost certainly not be able to replace that function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism

Here's a recent science article on the theory that we genetically may have an innate "theistic bias".
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/03/religion-biology-psychology-sociology.php

[uberscheisse]

[Arthur Dent]

Dare I? Yikes, scary territory.

I have found this debate (and I always do) most interesting. I have not the background that some of you may have, though I have considered the same questions as you have - and of the writers mentioned - though I have read precious little in the way of philosophy or religious texts. However, simply from reading widely (newspapers, magazines, fiction, non-fiction, etc.) I have gleaned much.

Now, I am not a religious or spiritual individual by any means, however, I have some sympathies for some of the espoused values and moral codes of the varying religions and creeds. I am not a believer in a higher power - in the sense that is given in most of these texts. My view, as simple as it may seem (too simple perhaps?), is that we simply (there's that word again) cannot know.

And really, I view these codes as deriving strictly from human nature and not of the divine - there is something comforting in that I think, that we are the ones who possess it, and created it, almost without knowing it seems, despite the nightmarish hue it takes on periodically - it is up to us to try to take the best of it forward into the future. Optimistic? Yes. But if we weren't at least a tad optimistic, what would be the point?

As our understanding of the world around us has grown and deepened, there has been a corresponding adaptation by some religions (or, more properly, their organizations). This alone would seem to negate a good proportion of their beliefs. It does not negate the very human impulse for kindness or moral behaviour (however one wishes to define morality; there has existed, unquestionably, a great variety throughout cultures and historical periods, of which, few seemed to bother those who were seen as the apex of moral behaviour by their peers, and there continue to be, as those who travel soon learn) - nor its its opposite within the same human nature.

Sometimes, I feel it is a wonder that we have established any kind of moral codes or behaviours whatsoever, given the set of history books and their contents laid before us today.

Conversely, given our centrist attitude, it is no wonder we have developed these monolithic religious organizations - much of it originally derived from myth , and ironically with god/men as the cornerstones. Perhaps this attitude is really the root of all evil. What a story it would make to be able to see and hear all that has transpired between men ( I use it in its 'archaic' form including all humans ) from recorded history until now. And here, I mean watching it transpire without the filter of the various forms of media.

I can't help but feel it is useless to argue about who has killed more in the name of whatever.....Granted, numbers seem - at least on the surface - a least a fair starting point for determining who is 'most evil.' However, that most basic of questions - in this particular debate - rings guiltily in my ears: Is an individual more evil for having killed thousands (or millions) than for one who has taken a single life (in the context of doing so not to protect their very lives or loved ones - i.e. justifiably) with no other "reason" than that their god or their beliefs (and by association, those who hold social/political beliefs) told them to do so? The difference seems more in the way of opportunity than motive or morality.

My lack of belief stems mainly from an inability to conceive of a Universe that would really pay that much attention to a species such as ourselves.

I am not entirely pessimistic however, and can see that we could yet make something of ourselves that we could take pride in (not pride in the biblical sense;)) in terms of continuing to learn about the Universe.

To be able to prove that god or some form of it exists, seems to me to be unknowable - at least for the present, and maybe forever. In the meantime, we seem to be forced to make do on our own.

And really, belief in one thing or another makes little difference when you consider that it may be more relevant to define someone by their deeds and not their beliefs. When it comes to evil acts, are not all of the same ilk?

So, there are evil atheists and evil theists? Not a satisfying conclusion really, is it? However, it has virtue in its accuracy.

In being challenged as to my morality by those of a believing nature, when they learn of my lack of belief, I can only say that it is not my atheism that acts as my moral compass, but rather my desire to live a life as free from enmity as possible, as it strikes me as the most rewarding behaviour, both from others as well as from myself. We have to live life on this planet together, so why not make it as pleasant and as interesting as possible, while being as free from superstition as we are capable of?

Reason guides me, experience warns me, compassion soothes me, friendship and amity keep me company, and logic saves me from barbarism. Gosh, I hope that doesn't sound 'New Ageish,' who knows what those guys are capable of....

[newton kabiddles]

Childish? Children roll on the floor laughing about boogas, they don't believe in God.

[mnhnhyouh]

[Rteacher]

"Uberscheisse" prefers to simply ignore well-reasoned arguments, using the tactic of labeling his opponent an "airhead" when he apparently has no good answer.

My last post, for example:

The atheist's position is perfectly OK - as long as there is no God.

Of course, there are different categories of atheists, and some are more offensive to God than others.

Atheists who basically follow laws of God (whether they acknowledge a Supreme Person or not) and who refrain from making offenses to God (or his sincere followers) probably won't be any worse off (if there is a God) than those who claim to be followers but engage in unnecessary killing and other sinful acts.

Although religions - like most everything in this world - tend to get corrupt and exploitative, the militant anti-theist position of wanting to wipe out all religion would almost certainly make things worse from a functionalist sociological point of view.

A viable religious institution is needed for developing a moral consensus/equilibrium with other societal institutions. Materialistic science would almost certainly not be able to replace that function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism

Here's a recent science article on the theory that we genetically may have an innate "theistic bias".
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/03/religion-biology-psychology-sociology.php

Although Karl Marx didn't specifically write much about religion, it is pretty clear that he was an atheist and thought that religion should be abolished.
His most famous passage about it is from his critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law:
...Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/a/marx_4.htm

Unlike some, I'm usually prepared to back up what I assert - and I admit to being wrong once in a while (like when there's a blue moon ... )

[ED209]

[uberscheisse]

[Kuros]

[Omkara]

I agree that there is Wisdom in the Bible. Yet, a reading which comes from a world view which includes demons, walking on water, etc., loses much of the wisdom. Read correctly, even the literal falsities can teach us much.

I do not think that the crying virgins, etc. are on the same level as the superstitions of the cross.

The symbolic reading Christ on the cross give us great psychological insight. To take it literally is credulous, though not on a par with the virgin's face on a slice of cheese-bread.

I accept your point about efficient cause. But the common and obtuse readings of the bible make the error of thinking the bible as being able to explain efficient causes. But the other extreme, which is a radical dualism of "non-overlapping majesterium" makes an indefensible mistake. I hold that there must be some relationship between final and efficient causes.

The other great danger of the bible is exactly that it is a claim about final cause, and, in English, this reading uses the definite article, "the." Hence, it tends naturally to tyranny. And since efficient and finial causes must have some relationship, it claims superior ground to science, and threatens therefore both science and scientific education.

That is, since Christianity has "the" final cause, all efficient cause must conform thereto. Any contradiction and. . .we get the scopes monkey trial, the dover trial, legislation against stem-cell research, attempted legislation against gay marriage. . . .

[ED209]

[SirFink]