Ethical Atheist vs believer in God

[Postmaster]

Ethical Atheists strive for esoteric knowledge and understanding of life and it could be one reason why they reject the popular notion of God! However with a theological system although it could have a narrower view on life, its biggest and most important advantage is can be taught and understood by a wider range of people, thus the positive effect on society is wider and more understood. Also there’s nothing stopping an ethical Atheist from applying there ethics to any current theological system, people with esoteric understanding usually do try apply there knowledge to current theological systems. So I guess the main difference is the inability for an ethical atheist to spread and teach there knowledge to wide range of people. After all an important part of life and living is not just learning but teaching.

[Snoopy]

How about organisations such as

British Humanist Association

National Secular Society - Home

s.

[wil]

What about UU's? Everytime I've stepped foot in a United Universalist Church they seem to have their share of atheists. In their services of run into folks in all faiths (or none) and running from all faiths...questioning belief, discussing ethics etc.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Ethical Atheists strive for esoteric knowledge and understanding of life and it could be one reason why they reject the popular notion of God! However with a theological system although it could have a narrower view on life, its biggest and most important advantage is can be taught and understood by a wider range of people, thus the positive effect on society is wider and more understood.

Positive effect!! lol Now that is a point for debate!

The problem with such thinking is that sweeps up vast numbers of people that inhabit a kind of grey area. I think it a great falsehood to claim that religion can do anything to enhance morality or ethics in the individual. Setting aside the many that call themselves believers yet never think about it nor formally practice it and the fewer that are atheist but have never used the word and do not dwell on ethical, spiritual or philosophical issues, we are left with a much smaller group to which such a question has meaning.

Here I posit that the goodness found in people who actively try to do good is a part of their innate nature and has nothing to do with any religion save when that person is driven to do so for an ultimately selfish desire of gaining gods favour. To understand what human 'goodness' really is we can do no better than look at the social structure of our closest ape cousins, the Bonobo's, and how social altruism is used in their societies. They do use it in grooming, food sharing, compassion for sick or injured and in play. But every act of empathy is also selfish in that it is a necessitated part of behaviour for acceptance within a group. So social group, a church for example, acts of an altruistic nature are used for cohesion and for status. So in fact there is a double dose of selfish purpose for the religiouslly motivated.

Now the good atheist that knows he/she is an atheist. Such people are normally pretty intelligent. They read a lot and widely and represent probably less than 1% of the global population. Yet they tend to be people at the leading edge of mans bold adventure into the future. They are the ones making progress happen. Most atheists do not even like to discuss religion, their eyes roll back and conversation is impossible. This is because they are too smart to take the corrupt tomes of even more corrupt religious institutions as any meaningful basis on which to model ones life. The many atheists that marvel and glow inside at buds bursting forth in spring or some new cosmic phenomenon caught on the Hubble telescope are those that love being alive. And a person who believes in being so alive can only be said to love life. This is a tiny percentage though that do not do it for some pseudo-tribal religious paradigm but just because they love life itself. No god required. And such people are often the true Global Villagers, the people with subscriptions to New Internationalist and Amnesty International. The people cataloguing the truth and hopefully pushing mankind incrementally toward a more 'humane' future.

I do not say that churches cannot be good. On the very local level when they remain small and out of the radar of those that make a lucrative career out of their congregation, then churches can and do do a good job of focusing a community effort of very real value. But churches as a whole are full of superfluous gibberish, internal politics and people that rarely think for themselves. And are usually aligned to massive institutions each claiming with stupifying ridiculousness to represent gods true will.

Atheists have been around a long time and for most of history, and in many places to this day, have been unable to raise their head above the parapet for fear of decapitation by those that profess it to be gods will to silence heresy. And even those 'believers' that would call themselves moderate or even liberal feel this need to brand atheism a religious heresy and its proponents somehow dangerous. But they do not realise the great gift of being able to see the totality of religion as the sad sham that it is and that the only way forward for mankind is to wake up to that fact. Yet as an atheist I grow ever more pessimistic that our time will bring such a revolution. Religion is spreading fast and being ever more polarised by its various factions. It is still being used as a weapon of power and reasoning for great indignities. Things are not going the way I would hope. But I remain firm it must be one of man.s primary abitions to throw off the yolk(sic) of superfluous primitive superstitions and embrace a love of life for love of lifes sake.


Also there’s nothing stopping an ethical Atheist from applying there ethics to any current theological system, people with esoteric understanding usually do try apply there knowledge to current theological systems. So I guess the main difference is the inability for an ethical atheist to spread and teach there knowledge to wide range of people. After all an important part of life and living is not just learning but teaching. [/quote]

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

After all an important part of life and living is not just learning but teaching.

As a Buddhist and an atheist I have some quibbles with the quote above. I don't want to "teach" anybody anything. The best thing that I can do is learn as much as possible.

If I learn well and conduct myself accordingly, there is a small chance that during normal social interaction I might inspire someone. But those moments are unpredictable and best accepted as such. The moment I purposely seek to teach somebody is the moment I become a bore.

[Postmaster]

How can you learn as much as possible without a teacher? If you want to learn as much as possible it would be an advantage to learn from other peoples knowledge. Do you consider the Buddha a teacher of any kind? I do. Learning and teaching are both equally important to me. And both are infinite. I think the monotheistic religious systems are better structured for teaching. They are more socially dynamic, depending on how you utilize them. Just saying God is a big man on a thrown is a concept that can be easily understood by a child and a philosopher could take 50 years to come a similar conclusion (which has happened).

[wil]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

How can you learn as much as possible without a teacher?

Who did Buddha learn from? Or rather whose teachings did Buddha reject?

[dauer]

Originally Posted by PM

Just saying God is a big man on a thrown is a concept that can be easily understood by a child and a philosopher could take 50 years to come a similar conclusion (which has happened).

And someone reading into the same traditions more critically might look instead for the origins of that imagery in what were once contemporary models of authority.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

Do you consider the Buddha a teacher of any kind? I do.

I consider the Buddha a trail blazer, like Lewis and Clark. I follow the general direction he laid out, but I don't try to match his route footstep for footstep.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Postmaster

How can you learn as much as possible without a teacher?

The world is a teacher. We can all learn from it howsoever we want.

However, when we learn from others, unless they are specifically teaching us critical thinking, then all they are teaching us is their opinions. And their opinions can come from listening to others or through observing the world.

Which takes us back to the first sentence.

[Postmaster]

Originally Posted by dauer

And someone reading into the same traditions more critically might look instead for the origins of that imagery in what were once contemporary models of authority.
[/font][/color][/font][/color]

Or according to freud God is used subonsiously by adults who have outgrown there parents.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The world is a teacher. We can all learn from it howsoever we want.

However, when we learn from others, unless they are specifically teaching us critical thinking, then all they are teaching us is their opinions. And their opinions can come from listening to others or through observing the world.

Which takes us back to the first sentence.

A good description of cave life. Teachers teach what is considered uselful to adapt of cave life which for us is the "world." However teachers that are able to teach how to leave the restrictions of the cave are very rare.

Simone Weil lamented that education had become no more than "an instrument manipulated by teachers for manufacturing more teachers, who in their turn will manufacture more teachers." rather than a guide to getting out of the cave.

The lady presents an interesting observation when considering the value of a "teacher" in matters of ethics and morality as part of the human condition that leads to life in the cave.

[dauer]

Originally Posted by PM

Or according to freud God is used subonsiously by adults who have outgrown there parents.

Not quite the same issue as the origin of the image of G!d as a king on a throne, but yes.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by dauer

Not quite the same issue as the origin of the image of G!d as a king on a throne, but yes.

Daddy's armchair? 簡潔さ



趁熱打鐵

[Postmaster]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The world is a teacher. We can all learn from it howsoever we want.

However, when we learn from others, unless they are specifically teaching us critical thinking, then all they are teaching us is their opinions. And their opinions can come from listening to others or through observing the world.

Which takes us back to the first sentence.

True. Usually someone will come out with something original and try to sell it in a book. I'm happy to buy it if I learn a thing or 2. The internet has greatly revolutionised the way we learn. Cause now we can constantly put true thought into millions of opinions and constantly evolve and fine tune them in debate much easier and faster. I guess I was trying to point out the universal importance of monotheism. Something middle aged smart men seem to be too fast to forget. I think this will be an age old problem. This only hit me when i started looking into social dynamics which is a really really interesting topic.