Why?

[Proinsias]

And your morals come through God, and handed down through 2000 years of western civilisation, built on Christianity. Any morals you possess have nothing whatsoever to do with your faith - a-theism, which was founded as a protest. Your morals come through being born and raised in a Christian culture, and you are parasitic on that culture.

May you find God, but all in good time

I was under the impression that the term atheism was coined by the Greeks before the emergence of Christianity.

To claim that any morals one possesses are the product of being raised in a Christian culture seems a rather shaky position to me. There are many morals which are common to atheists and are shared by people coming from non-Christian upbringings and cultures. Which morals is it you allude to that come from being raised in a Christian culture as opposed to an Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, secular, pagan or .... the list goes on?

Yes that's right, and anyone who wasn't a pagan was an "atheist". Christians in the beginning were referred to as "atheist". But we - surely - both know that "atheism" in the true, modern sense of the word, was a rebelliom, a protest against a stringent and at times corrupt church. Atheism sought to give man moral autonomy, and just look where THAT led! Morality comes down through our culture, couhed firmly and snugly in the Christian ethic. A-theism has no moral foundations whatsoever, so a-theist morals are purely parasitic upon Christianity.

Dan

Atheism means a great many things to a great many people, as does theism. It's surely not tough to imagine an atheist viewing Christianity as parasitic upon morality - just look where THAT led, the argument works for either side and in my experience leads to little more than comparing lists of atrocities. Again which morals is it you speak of that come from being raised in a Christian culture that one would be unable to obtain from Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, secular etc....

I wasn't aware that Christians were referred to as atheist in the beginning, if that were the case does that not put atheist's in a similar position currently as to that of Christianity in the first few centuries ie. parasitic upon another culture.

The term pagan is not particular useful either and seems a little circular in this context as its use was more so to define non-Abrahamic traditions and was coined by Christians to my knowledge.

There are certainly atheists who are keen to use the term in the way of not believing in God but there are also those who wish to use the term more in the sense of simply being without theism.

Wrong. Atheism is a belief that there is No God. Faith can be defined as believing in something which cannot be proven. Believing in No God is believing in something which cannot be proven. Therefore, atheism is a faith. This is philosophically correct.

Again I refer to the distinction between hard and soft atheism. In my experience hard atheism is the conviction that there is no God, soft atheism is more along the lines of 'if some reasonable evidence/experience shows up which can change my mind then I'll give it some brainspace, until then I'll dismiss theism'. I'm also not sure you are correct in saying Atheism is the belief there is no God, it's more 'without god' in many cases.

You cannot lump atheists with the agnostics - that would patently be incorrect. A non-belief in God is agnosticism; a belief that there is No God is atheism; the non-belief is agnostic as it is undecided; the firm stance of a BELEF that there is NO GOD is atheism, and thus a faith.

If we are still speaking philosophically I believe that is incorrect. Agnosticism deals with knowledge not belief. One can believe in God but still be seeking a gnostic experience of God.

Personally I tend to avoid the labels as before I choose one to define myself I'd really have to define God, which has been a never ending and surprising journey so far. One can be an Agnostic theist and not be a walking contradiction.

The way in which terms are most commonly used in the present day are not always the way in which the people who use those terms wish to be defined. It's often better to ask people how they define themselves as opposed to telling them how they have defined themselves. Hence the reason I have been mainly lurking here over the past few months in an attempt to get some understanding of how thoughtful, intelligent Christians define themselves and to see what I can learn from them.

[Santa]

But does that mean children need to be force-fed the bible in order to be saved?

Force fed? The only thing I see children today being force fed is secular humanism, though all forms of media and culture. TV, billboards, magazines, public schools.......They are fed, what to wear, what to think, what to say, what to do, what to like, what to listen to, etc. etc.
And yet somehow people think raising a child in a Christian home is "forcing" something on them. Comical.

I didn't say that at all. Like I said, I was raised catholic, but not to the point of brainwashing. Brainwashing is when parents are adamant to their kids that something in particular is to be believed, and that everything else is deadset false.

Children being told to watch a particular cartoon or seeing an ad on TV for cereal is completely different. Why don't we all go back to living in caves and do away with TV and radio? It's the job of parents to guide children in the right direction.

Hey Santa, (still can't get over that name, lol, it just doesn't sound right on this thread), I thought I would make the point that you can be a Christian with questions, that's what I am. I Have trouble with many things, so I seek out an answer. You can still have questions to what the Word says, but you can also be a Christian at the same time!
God bless!

I don't see why I should start considering to be part of something I'm not sure of - and why should I? I may as well become part of every religion.

[DannyM]

Atheism means a great many things to a great many people, as does theism. It's surely not tough to imagine an atheist viewing Christianity as parasitic upon morality - just look where THAT led, the argument works for either side and in my experience leads to little more than comparing lists of atrocities. Again which morals is it you speak of that come from being raised in a Christian culture that one would be unable to obtain from Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, secular etc.....

No the argument does not work either side at all, and it is desperate and disingenuous of you to suggest it does. You were born, educated and raised in a Christian culture. Without that Christian foundation heaven knows what brand of "morality" you would have been brouight up practicing! Tell me - historically, how on earth can Christianity be parasitic on morality when the whole of western civilisation is built on Christianity? You need to answer this if you insist on making wild historical assumptions. And before you talk of Classical Greece or Jerusalem as the founders of western civilisation, they were not; they were still very much UNcivilisaed.

I wasn't aware that Christians were referred to as atheist in the beginning, if that were the case does that not put atheist's in a similar position currently as to that of Christianity in the first few centuries ie. parasitic upon another culture.
The term pagan is not particular useful either and seems a little circular in this context as its use was more so to define non-Abrahamic traditions and was coined by Christians to my knowledge..

Atheist comes from the Greek "atheistos" and it meant 'one who denies the traditional religion of the Athenian establishment' or words to that effect. To deny any existence of the gods was punishable by death, ala the enforced suicide of Socrates. This is "civilised" classic Athens in all its gory glory. The first Christians were classed as atheist but the term soon earned its rightful place, hence what most people know the term today and since modernity.

There are certainly atheists who are keen to use the term in the way of not believing in God but there are also those who wish to use the term more in the sense of simply being without theism.
Again I refer to the distinction between hard and soft atheism. In my experience hard atheism is the conviction that there is no God, soft atheism is more along the lines of 'if some reasonable evidence/experience shows up which can change my mind then I'll give it some brainspace, until then I'll dismiss theism'. I'm also not sure you are correct in saying Atheism is the belief there is no God, it's more 'without god' in many cases..

"Hard and soft atheism" to me is just waterted down nonsense.

1. The theist says, There is a God.
2. The atheist says, There is no God.
3. The agnostic says, I am undecided as I do not have enough evidence to adjudicate either way.

1. The theist has made a positive statement.
2. The atheist has made a positive statement.
3. The agnostic has made a passive statement.

1. 1 is unprovable.
2. 2 is unprovable.
3. 3 is passive so requires no proof.

1. Has to be mainted by faith.
2. Has to be maintained by faith.
3. No faith required here.

God bless

[/quote]

[DannyM]

Wrong. Atheism is a belief that there is No God. Faith can be defined as believing in something which cannot be proven. Believing in No God is believing in something which cannot be proven. Therefore, atheism is a faith. This is philosophically correct.

You cannot lump atheists with the agnostics - that would patently be incorrect. A non-belief in God is agnosticism; a belief that there is No God is atheism; the non-belief is agnostic as it is undecided; the firm stance of a BELEF that there is NO GOD is atheism, and thus a faith.

Dan

That is correct Dan. And the atheistic worldview has had serious ramifications for every society it is implemented in. Every single time (without exception) that a nation has implemented state atheism, it has resulted in terrible persecution of the populace. Every single time.

Absolutely, AOK. Where shall we begin? How about the French Revolution all the way through to Stalin? All these atheist regimes professed to be the "liberator" of a morally stringent church, and in double quick time became the oppresso, and in such a horrific manner that is to be literally unbelievable. And as you say, "without exception". State sponsored atheism has sought to eradicate religion. Even Stalin's despicable regime, whose death count sits somewhere between 85-100m, coudn't eradicate people's faith.

God bless

[waynepii]

1. The theist says, There is a God.
2. The atheist says, There is no God.
3. The agnostic says, I am undecided as I do not have enough evidence to adjudicate either way.

1. The theist has made a positive statement.
2. The atheist has made a positive statement.
3. The agnostic has made a passive statement.

1. 1 is unprovable.
2. 2 is unprovable.
3. 3 is passive so requires no proof.

1. Has to be mainted by faith.
2. Has to be maintained by faith.
3. No faith required here.

The problem with this is that the Theist is unable to prove the existence of their God. So faith is required to believe in their God.

On the other hand, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, so your "2 is unprovable" is essentially meaningless. Try proving leprechauns don't exist.

As another way of looking at it, consider a magic show. The magician saws his assistant in two, you have no idea how he did it. Do you assume it really WAS magic and the assistant actually WAS cut in half and then put back together? Or do you assume it was an illusion that you haven't figured out. Wouldn't it take a substantial amount of credible proof to convince you that it wasn't just an illusion but REALLY was magic? Are you basing this on "faith" in the non-existence of magic or the lack of any credible proof of its existence?

[jlay]

The problem with this is that the Theist is unable to prove the existence of their God. So faith is required to believe in their God.

I certainly don't agree with that, and the bible doesn't seem to either.

Hebrews 11:1 says,
"Now faith is being SURE of what we hope for and CERTAIN of what we do not see."

This says we can be SURE and CERTAIN.

i have faith that radio waves exist. Even though I have never, nor will ever see one. However, with the proper receiver, I can be SURE that they do in fact exist. The same is true with the Christian. The invisble God can manifest himself if the receiver is properly tuned in. That is a unique quality of the Christian faith.

Wayne, you (you personally) can KNOW that God exist.

[Proinsias]

Atheism means a great many things to a great many people, as does theism. It's surely not tough to imagine an atheist viewing Christianity as parasitic upon morality - just look where THAT led, the argument works for either side and in my experience leads to little more than comparing lists of atrocities. Again which morals is it you speak of that come from being raised in a Christian culture that one would be unable to obtain from Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, secular etc.....

No the argument does not work either side at all, and it is desperate and disingenuous of you to suggest it does. You were born, educated and raised in a Christian culture. Without that Christian foundation heaven knows what brand of "morality" you would have been brouight up practicing! Tell me - historically, how on earth can Christianity be parasitic on morality when the whole of western civilisation is built on Christianity? You need to answer this if you insist on making wild historical assumptions. And before you talk of Classical Greece or Jerusalem as the founders of western civilisation, they were not; they were still very much UNcivilisaed.

Heaven may know but being friends with people brought up in non-Christian cultures has led me to believe that my morals are not too dependent on the culture I was brought up in. I have found I have more in common with the morals of close friends brought up in very different cultures than I have with some of the people I went through school with or work with.

Civilization and what it means to be civilized is another rather vague term, especially when used to make judgments.

Again I need to ask which morals it is you are talking about.

Atheist comes from the Greek "atheistos" and it meant 'one who denies the traditional religion of the Athenian establishment' or words to that effect. To deny any existence of the gods was punishable by death, ala the enforced suicide of Socrates. This is "civilised" classic Athens in all its gory glory. The first Christians were classed as atheist but the term soon earned its rightful place, hence what most people know the term today and since modernity.

It's not as if western Christianity is devoid of 'gory glory' either.
Now it seems that the word atheist is more in line with one who denies the traditional religion in the form of Christianity, this was often punishable by rather painful death but these days seems to be earning some sort of place in the modern world, some would even argue 'rightful place'.

As for your definitions of theist, agnostic and atheist. It seems not only myself and many atheists but also fellow Christians on the board who disagree with you. Personally I came here, and mainly lurk, to find out what theism means to people here. I've always found it more beneficial to listen as to how people describe themselves and their outlook on life as opposed to telling them what the label they have chosen to identify with 'actually means'.

As before if I've overstepped the boundaries of this forum I will retract my recent posts and go back to reading and thinking around here instead.

[ageofknowledge]

Most of the non-Christians I've met in my travels have precious few morals at all. They take drugs, get drunk, engage in sexual immorality (some to the extreme), steal when it is convenient to do so, are Machivillian when it profits them to be so, exploit, manipulate, backstab, gossip, and do a whole lot more and do it frequently while ridiculing Christians. I'm not sure of this wonderful morality you've found apart from God but I haven't seen it. Just a bunch of deceived and lost people that the God they don't believe in loves very much despite their disconnect from him in word and truth.

[Santa]

lol, wow, way to be judgemental. So you've met every non-believer have you? I could easily say most christians aren't true christians and lump you all into that category.

You don't need religion in order to have morals.

[Proinsias]

They take drugs, get drunk, engage in sexual immorality (some to the extreme)

I guess this may set me apart from much of the community but drugs and sex never really bothered me, taken to the extreme is another matter altogether. I should maybe add that I am happily married and can't think of anyone I know who doesn't partake of drugs.

steal when it is convenient to do so, are Machivillian when it profits them to be so, exploit, manipulate, backstab, gossip, and do a whole lot more

This is really where my point lies. There are people in every culture on the planet that do this, including Christians. I know from growing up in a predominantly Christian culture that there are people in this mould and I know people coming from completely different cultures that are definitely not in this mould.

[Proinsias]

So you've met every non-believer have you?

Did he say that?

[ageofknowledge]

lol, wow, way to be judgemental. So you've met every non-believer have you? I could easily say most christians aren't true christians and lump you all into that category.

You don't need religion in order to have morals.

I'm relating what I have observed more often than not. And without God your morals have no ultimate meaning nor are they right or wrong in the absolute sense. You're just a chimp relation that chose some behaviors. Not even worthy of a congratulations in that context.

[Proinsias]

I'm not sure of this wonderful morality you've found apart from God but I haven't seen it. Just a bunch of deceived and lost people that the God they don't believe in loves very much despite their disconnect from him in word and truth.

Perhaps not so much wonderful morality as not immoral, everyone has their faults. I just don't find that religion, race, culture etc enters into it hugely. I've met many wonderful, thoughtful, intelligent, warm, friendly, stimulating people that I've learned a lot from and would consider dear to me from many different walks of life.

[ageofknowledge]

I guess this may set me apart from much of the community but drugs and sex never really bothered me...

Predictable.

...and can't think of anyone I know who doesn't partake of drugs.

Interesting. I can think of a only a very few people I know today that do. We are obviously running in very different circles. I run in church circles and you run... wherever the dope is I guess.

steal when it is convenient to do so, are Machivillian when it profits them to be so, exploit, manipulate, backstab, gossip, and do a whole lot more

This is really where my point lies. There are people in every culture on the planet that do this, including Christians. I know from growing up in a predominantly Christian culture that there are people in this mould and I know people coming from completely different cultures that are definitely not in this mould.

Imagine how much more predominate it would be today if our law and social humanism wasn't based on a worldview that rejects these things as moral or desirable.

[ageofknowledge]

I've met many wonderful, thoughtful, intelligent, warm, friendly, stimulating people that I've learned a lot from and would consider dear to me from many different walks of life.

That's funny you've met so many people with all those wonderful traits because I've been a non-Christian and a Christian and traveled the world for decades. Most of the people I've met thought they were all of those things but upon closer inspection: really were not. In fact, they could get quite nasty when their view of the world was openly refuted in their presence.