The atheist views lack centralization or a strong professing membership for more reasons than intellectual cowardice, I think. I think though that atheism serves a useful purpose. We constructed Gods in a search for God, and found much about man. If we deconstruct Gods in a search for the truth, the principle that guides all of this and the reason why it isn’t a big meaningless mass of entropy can be discovered. But perhaps not until we can stop makings idols of men, or ideals perhaps? What does anyone else think?
Everything needs something to counter to advance on. Creating something wrong gives a focus to create again what could be more right. So rather than say one view is right or the other, maybe they are parts of a deeper truth all together. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Is having an idol something that gets in the way of our lives, or is it more in how you use that idol to inspire? It is funny, but it seems that atheism and organized religion agree on that, and they say yes. That a static inspiration is inadequate. You can be motivated to keep things very stagnant, and what’s usually the consequence of that?
Decay. This is true even in physics.
Is death as simple as ‘just gone’ for atheists? Atheism, and especially humanism, do believe death is the end, but in the case of humanism they say it’s our moral obligation to use our lives to create a positive legacy for our descendants.
For myself, a world view characterized by a negative identity is inherently illogical. This is my view, and by negative I don’t mean pessimistic or cranky. Basing a belief on the non existence of a thing works counter to the functions of the human mind. It has already been proven that the human subconscious mind thinks only in terms of identity, so the assertion that there is no God is “there is … God” to the subconscious mind. Their efforts are inherently self defeating. They do make valid criticism, but a positive address and engagement of those issues is called for, not just the abandonment or abolition of an old idea just because it seems weak now.
They use religion vs. belief itself in their arguments against? Religion has given them good ammunition? Well, in a sense yes. There are many arguments about culpable versus non-culpable disbelief. They argue that a lack of belief in God is not an active opposition of any possible God, but that there is no justifiable reason that this lack of belief would be grounds for “damnation”. Culpable means roughly “morally/legally responsible”, so they focus more on why they have no belief than any affirmative belief. The world view is almost completely reactionary.
Someone once said he would rather be Christian and discover he was wrong than being an atheist and discover that he was wrong. Considering both sides of the argument myself, even if the Christian God exists then there is a degree of accountability in him/her/it. In a sense, I have more faith that this being is not as humans described and more responsible and reasonable. In fact, a paragon of responsibility and reason, perhaps the only one that exists.
Maybe the basis for atheism lies around not being disappointed? Honestly, fear of disappointment seems more cowardly than a belief in Gods in my opinion.
If there actually is a God she must be somehow indescribable by human thoughts and language? Yes, that’s an agnostic view. I favour the Gnostic stance primarily myself, that self knowledge is knowledge of the intelligence that is our source, and that transcends us, carries on to our children, and was with our ancestors.
If your child dies and you don’t believe in God anymore can you be called a coward? Not at all. Perhaps an atheist. The only thing I called cowardly was fear of disappointment. Whatever is is, and I want to see what is.
Sometimes not believing has it’s reasons. Unbelief is welcome here if that unbelief accepts others that believe. Our group is called ‘One World, Many Paths’ for a reason. Agnostics and atheists are welcome, and even tolerant Christians. The only precluded beliefs on our Reflection Island in Second Life are any that justify intolerance or abuse. It is about learning, and not about being right or wrong. This is part of why I appear as what people consider a sinister form in Second Life, and I am quite amused when people think it clashes with my personality.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.
Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~