PDA

View Full Version : Atheism And The West



Caledonian
Sunday, October 17th, 2010, 05:17 AM
Atheism is a luxory of western culture and general independent thought that comes from within western civilization.

Atheism is a product of western philosophy and the western rational empirical mind.

There is a reason why atheism within all it's tenets, ideas, and entire structure is purely western because only within western civilization was it allowed to flourish not to mention does it still flourish the most in population density to this day within western societies as well.

Why the modern atheist dominantly embraces liberal politics and multiculturalism is beyond me.

The rest of the world largely is religious where by allowing them within western nations to think they will cherish or even tolerate atheism and atheists is comical considering everywhere else in the world atheists are vehemently persecuted to great extraordinary lengths.

If Islam was to take over Europe atheists everywhere in Europe might as well forgo hiding because in a sense to Islam there is nothing worse than that of a atheist that denies the entire existence of god altogether where the common atheist is hated more than the European Christian or any other religious group within Europe.

If atheism wishes to survive as a scholarly and intellectual movement it is in it's best interests to preserve western civilization whereas in order to do this liberal politics along with the embracement of multiculturalism must be completely rejected.

[ You cannot allow the hand that allows you to exist in the first place be under threat and essentially with many modern atheists rejecting conservative and cultural tradition a majority of atheists have done this exactly.]

I think it is time that more and more atheists come to this same conclusion where they come to support conservative or cultural traditions instead of abandoning them looking upon them as trivial superficialities of our past.

I think it is time atheists everywhere re-examine themselves on their view of culture, race, and tradition instead of rejecting such assemblances senselessly.

Like anybody else atheists everywhere have a shared collective history where it is in our best interests to protect that collective history at greath lengths.

As atheists we need to cherish our historical cultural past, present, and future for it is within our western societies that our philosophy was developed where it was nowhere else.

locc
Sunday, December 26th, 2010, 09:47 PM
I have many friends who are atheist and do not embrace these left ideas at all. I think that this phenomenon of leftist atheists is mainly a US thing and is found to a lesser extend in European countries.

I personally believe that a reasonable part of the atheists today are atheist because it's the new "cool thing to be" in the same way that being a fan of multiculturalism is the "cool thing to do".

King Sitric
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 02:03 AM
The Reformation and the Protestant faith must be thanked for it's development of the Freethinkers and Atheism. Without such progresive steps ...... self-guilt folk would still be enslaved to the Catholic faith.

Caledonian
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 04:31 AM
The Reformation and the Protestant faith must be thanked for it's development of the Freethinkers and Atheism. Without such progresive steps ...... self-guilt folk would still be enslaved to the Catholic faith.

Of course atheism has it's roots much earlier than that as we can find the first proponents of atheists in ancient Greece around a wide range of ancient Greek philosophers. ;)

It was ancient Greece and the emergence of western philosophical traditions that gave rise to atheism.


Iocc said:

I have many friends who are atheist and do not embrace these left ideas at all. I think that this phenomenon of leftist atheists is mainly a US thing and is found to a lesser extend in European countries.

I personally believe that a reasonable part of the atheists today are atheist because it's the new "cool thing to be" in the same way that being a fan of multiculturalism is the "cool thing to do".

A great deal of atheists even intellectual ones embrace racial nihilism siding with multiculturalism under the mental approach that nothing matters where anything and everything goes.

If you take nihilism to it's core they are right in that nothing does matter however what they fail to understand is that atheism is steeped in western philosophical tradition where the rest of the foreign world is steeped in ultra religionism by which having them immigrate in mass in our nations they will not tolerate atheism so much at all hence why us atheists need to be more mindful and must preserve our western cultural traditions for our very disbelief is very much apart of western European culture.

All of us atheists that actually wish to preserve western European culture must face off and challenge those atheists of the other side that are proned to racial cultural nihilism.

We must show them the error and destructive nature of their ways for their carelessness towards the subject or at the very least we must neutralize their arguements.

Paradigm
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 05:08 AM
Atheism is a luxory of western culture and general independent thought that comes from within western civilization.

Atheism is a product of western philosophy and the western rational empirical mind.

There is a reason why atheism within all it's tenets, ideas, and entire structure is purely western because only within western civilization was it allowed to flourish not to mention does it still flourish the most in population density to this day within western societies as well.

There may be some Western philosophy with atheist elements, but I see Eastern philosophy with more atheistic elements than the West. Even when philosophers tried to ignore God in a religious since, they ended up coming back to one in a philosophical since (Descartes, for example).


Why the modern atheist dominantly embraces liberal politics and multiculturalism is beyond me.

Because there is nothing cultural or traditional about atheism. It's the reject of established morals and values. Atheism itself is universalist. It transcends all cultural bounds.


The rest of the world largely is religious where by allowing them within western nations to think they will cherish or even tolerate atheism and atheists is comical considering everywhere else in the world atheists are vehemently persecuted to great extraordinary lengths.

In a sense, Buddhism is "atheist".


If Islam was to take over Europe atheists everywhere in Europe might as well forgo hiding because in a sense to Islam there is nothing worse than that of a atheist that denies the entire existence of god altogether where the common atheist is hated more than the European Christian or any other religious group within Europe.

Islam is not as bad as you think. The fundamentalist are exploited in the media. You can find Christians (like my family) who are just as bad.


If atheism wishes to survive as a scholarly and intellectual movement it is in it's best interests to preserve western civilization whereas in order to do this liberal politics along with the embracement of multiculturalism must be completely rejected.

[You cannot allow the hand that allows you to exist in the first place be under threat and essentially with many modern atheists rejecting conservative and cultural tradition a majority of atheists have done this exactly.]

Liberal politics and multiculturalism are at the roots of atheism in the modern world.


I think it is time that more and more atheists come to this same conclusion where they come to support conservative or cultural traditions instead of abandoning them looking upon them as trivial superficialities of our past.

This is one aspect of atheism. That it doesn't support said traditions.


I think it is time atheists everywhere re-examine themselves on their view of culture, race, and tradition instead of rejecting such assemblances senselessly.

Like anybody else atheists everywhere have a shared collective history where it is in our best interests to protect that collective history at greath lengths.

As atheists we need to cherish our historical cultural past, present, and future for it is within our western societies that our philosophy was developed where it was nowhere else.

Read Ride the Tiger: Surival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul by Julius Evola, and you'll see a new light on atheism.

I used to be an atheist, I don't deny and do embrace my transformation, because it's starting new. You rid yourself of what you see as a negative. I still hold some of those views, but now on a spiritual plane. I was highly influenced by Ayn Rand, especially after reading The Fountainhead. This heightened my individualism. Eventually I got interested in the Temple of Set and then the Church of Satan and other left-hand path philosophy. My interest in the occult put a new twist on my idea of individualism, and my philosophy had the aspect of elevating one's self to a god like status, and that the individual is a very powerful being. Eventually my interest in Asatru/Odinism started with runes, while still interested in the occult, and I felt like there must be something to come back to, a set of tradition and values. Once I read into it more I picked up the tradition and history as my own, as part of my ancestry and blood, my history. Eventually I got around to reading Ride the Tiger and his philosophy on Nietzsche's nihilism and Sartre's existentialism couldn't be more perfect (especially his view on the modern world and subculture, and Kali Yuga). This put my view into a more perfected direction, so to speak. You must realize that atheism is the objection of traditional values and cultural elements that are embedded in the people. There's nothing to come back to in just "atheism". At least with Buddhism there is somewhat a systematic approach with established views on morality, ethics, and tradition that lie within it.

I've become more accepting of the existence of a god in the sense of Aristotle or Descarte, as the "first mover" of the universe, not in a religious sense. I don't know what conflict this would cause with Odinism/Asatru, though.

Caledonian
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 05:19 AM
There may be some Western philosophy with atheist elements, but I see Eastern philosophy with more atheistic elements than the West. Even when philosophers tried to ignore God in a religious since, they ended up coming back to one in a philosophical since (Descartes, for example).



Because there is nothing cultural or traditional about atheism. It's the reject of established morals and values. Atheism itself is universalist. It transcends all cultural bounds.



In a sense, Buddhism is "atheist".



Islam is not as bad as you think. The fundamentalist are exploited in the media. You can find Christians (like my family) who are just as bad.



Liberal politics and multiculturalism are at the roots of atheism in the modern world.



This is one aspect of atheism. That it doesn't support said traditions.



Read Ride the Tiger: Surival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul by Julius Evola, and you'll see a new light on atheism.

I used to be an atheist, I don't deny and do embrace my transformation, because it's starting new. You rid yourself of what you see as a negative. I still hold some of those views, but now on a spiritual plane. I was highly influenced by Ayn Rand, especially after reading The Fountainhead. This heightened my individualism. Eventually I got interested in the Temple of Set and then the Church of Satan and other left-hand path philosophy. My interest in the occult put a new twist on my idea of individualism, and my philosophy had the aspect of elevating one's self to a god like status, and that the individual is a very powerful being. Eventually my interest in Asatru/Odinism started with runes, while still interested in the occult, and I felt like there must be something to come back to, a set of tradition and values. Once I read into it more I picked up the tradition and history as my own, as part of my ancestry and blood, my history. Eventually I got around to reading Ride the Tiger and his philosophy on Nietzsche's nihilism and Sartre's existentialism couldn't be more perfect (especially his view on the modern world and subculture, and Kali Yuga). This put my view into a more perfected direction, so to speak. You must realize that atheism is the objection of traditional values and cultural elements that are embedded in the people. There's nothing to come back to in just "atheism". At least with Buddhism there is somewhat a systematic approach with established views on morality, ethics, and tradition that lie within it.

I've become more accepting of the existence of a god in the sense of Aristotle or Descarte, as the "first mover" of the universe, not in a religious sense. I don't know what conflict this would cause with Odinism/Asatru, though.


There may be some Western philosophy with atheist elements, but I see Eastern philosophy with more atheistic elements than the West. Even when philosophers tried to ignore God in a religious since, they ended up coming back to one in a philosophical since (Descartes, for example).

While it's true some western philosophy might of borrowed some eastern philosophies I still stand firm behind my position that atheism is dominantly a creation of western philosophical tradition specifically with that of empiricism and materialism as philosophical perspectives that derived from the European west.


Because there is nothing cultural or traditional about atheism. It's the reject of established morals and values. Atheism itself is universalist. It transcends all cultural bounds.

There may be nothing cultural or traditional embedded within atheism but that doesn't mean that atheists can't retain somthing cultural and traditional in their way of being.

I along with others are a testament to that otherwise I wouldn't be here.


It's the reject of established morals and values.

Sure but even atheists value somthing.


Atheism itself is universalist. It transcends all cultural bounds.

It's universal probally in a sense in it's rejection of so called universal truths.

It's transcendent to a point but only upon it's disbelief of specifically held religious dogmas and institutions.


In a sense, Buddhism is "atheist".

I've never seen anything to tell me that Buddhism is atheistic.

Most forms of Buddhism I have observed are latched onto a variety of eastern pagan traditions.


Islam is not as bad as you think. The fundamentalist are exploited in the media. You can find Christians (like my family) who are just as bad.

I dislike both of those religions so it doesn't matter to me a bit.

Pagans are practically the only specific religious beliefs I sympathize with despite my disbelief in all religion and spiritualities because of some of the social emblems within paganism that I admire.

However don't look forward to me into believing and worshipping a bunch of gods anytime soon despite my small token of affection for pagans only when it comes to any religion in that the atheist in me simply doesn't have a heart in it.


Liberal politics and multiculturalism are at the roots of atheism in the modern world.

It would seem so now in our present but I believe that to be a mistake which is why I created this thread.

As I've said I believe atheism is dominantly a creation of western philosophical traditions where only upon western Europeans was it allowed to foster and prosper in that nowhere else in the world was it allowed to do so because most of the rest of the world is completely hostile to atheism as a mental perspective.

From that perspective I believe atheism owes it's entire existence to western civilization which as a atheist myself I believe it is the duty of every Germanic and europid atheist to make it a part of their way to preserve racial cultural emblems of western civilization.

As I said our very disbelief I believe stems from western philosophical traditions that were only made possible by western civilization itself.

Nowhere else is the atheist philosophical disposition more stronger outside of the western world.

The reason for this is that only in the western world have atheists been able to have the luxory and privilege of existing in that only the western environment of thought has allowed us to exist persistently.

I think the very dispositions of a great deal of modern atheists unlike myself need to be challenged when it concerns their multicultural racial nihilism because of this.

I have no problem with philosophical nihilism myself in that I'm somewhat of a nihilist but I do have a problem with misguided forms of nihilism ironicly enough as one in that they bother me on a personal level.



This is one aspect of atheism. That it doesn't support said traditions

But as I said atheism is a western intellectual tradition. ;)

So in a sense it may not support traditions yet it itself is one nonetheless.



I used to be an atheist, I don't deny and do embrace my transformation, because it's starting new. You rid yourself of what you see as a negative. I still hold some of those views, but now on a spiritual plane. I was highly influenced by Ayn Rand, especially after reading The Fountainhead. This heightened my individualism. Eventually I got interested in the Temple of Set and then the Church of Satan and other left-hand path philosophy. My interest in the occult put a new twist on my idea of individualism, and my philosophy had the aspect of elevating one's self to a god like status, and that the individual is a very powerful being. Eventually my interest in Asatru/Odinism started with runes, while still interested in the occult, and I felt like there must be something to come back to, a set of tradition and values. Once I read into it more I picked up the tradition and history as my own, as part of my ancestry and blood, my history. Eventually I got around to reading Ride the Tiger and his philosophy on Nietzsche's nihilism and Sartre's existentialism couldn't be more perfect (especially his view on the modern world and subculture, and Kali Yuga). This put my view into a more perfected direction, so to speak. You must realize that atheism is the objection of traditional values and cultural elements that are embedded in the people. There's nothing to come back to in just "atheism". At least with Buddhism there is somewhat a systematic approach with established views on morality, ethics, and tradition that lie within it.

I've become more accepting of the existence of a god in the sense of Aristotle or Descarte, as the "first mover" of the universe, not in a religious sense. I don't know what conflict this would cause with Odinism/Asatru, though.

I entered atheism through philosophical nihilism, empiricism, and materialism along with a steady approach to discerning schools that approach the subject of logic.

I've never looked back towards religion ever since.

locc
Monday, December 27th, 2010, 09:19 AM
A great deal of atheists even intellectual ones embrace racial nihilism siding with multiculturalism under the mental approach that nothing matters where anything and everything goes.


I'm sure that more atheists are politically left than politically right if you look at the entire world but in my personal experience, most atheists I've met are pretty conservative.



If you take nihilism to it's core they are right in that nothing does matter however what they fail to understand is that atheism is steeped in western philosophical tradition where the rest of the foreign world is steeped in ultra religionism by which having them immigrate in mass in our nations they will not tolerate atheism so much at all hence why us atheists need to be more mindful and must preserve our western cultural traditions for our very disbelief is very much apart of western European culture.

All of us atheists that actually wish to preserve western European culture must face off and challenge those atheists of the other side that are proned to racial cultural nihilism.

We must show them the error and destructive nature of their ways for their carelessness towards the subject or at the very least we must neutralize their arguements.

I agree.



Because there is nothing cultural or traditional about atheism. It's the reject of established morals and values.


Atheists only reject the absolute morals like the 10 commandments. Most Christian morals are just cultural morals that society invented; they later found a matching passage in the bible to support these morals.

This means that atheists are just as likely to follow these morals as Christians are; atheists aren't without morals after all.

And, culture is also irrelevant for most part. Most atheists will even celebrate Christian holidays because these events are more social events than they are religious events.



Liberal politics and multiculturalism are at the roots of atheism in the modern world.


The root of atheism is the lack of believe in supernatural things. I do not believe in multiculturalism and am an atheist. Nobody influenced me into being an atheist either because I never believed in supernatural things (excluding the regular monster and ghost believes most little kids have when I was a little kid).

Rev. Jupiter
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 12:56 AM
Just like modern religion is nothing but primitive superstition, modern atheism is solely the result of opposition toward that superstition. Unfortunately, self-proclaimed atheists just replace one petty belief with another.

As much as Atheists like to claim that they only have an absence of belief, the truth is that the modern Western "atheist" paradigm has a distinctive collection of personalities, histories, and beliefs that qualify it as a religion.

I'd take atheists far more seriously if they were more influenced by the non-theistic currents in Classical Greek and Indian philosophy than by modern secular humanists.

Also, I take issue with the OP's logic. Atheism = The West. The West = modern. Modernity = corrupt. And yet somehow Atheism ≠ corrupt? What sort of logic is this?

King Sitric
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 01:08 AM
Some folk need a psychological crutch, and they find this in religion.

Religion is nothing more than superstitious nonsense to caress troubled minds in need.

Better to be free of it all and be unbiased in thoughts.


Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' is a great read!

Rev. Jupiter
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 01:14 AM
Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' is a great read!


I'd take atheists far more seriously if they were more influenced by the non-theistic currents in Classical Greek and Indian philosophy than by modern secular humanists.


My point exactly.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 01:30 AM
Just like modern religion is nothing but primitive superstition, modern atheism is solely the result of opposition toward that superstition. Unfortunately, self-proclaimed atheists just replace one petty belief with another.

As much as Atheists like to claim that they only have an absence of belief, the truth is that the modern Western "atheist" paradigm has a distinctive collection of personalities, histories, and beliefs that qualify it as a religion.

I'd take atheists far more seriously if they were more influenced by the non-theistic currents in Classical Greek and Indian philosophy than by modern secular humanists.

Also, I take issue with the OP's logic. Atheism = The West. The West = modern. Modernity = corrupt. And yet somehow Atheism ≠ corrupt? What sort of logic is this?

Not all atheists are secular humanists either.

I don't consider myself one.


Also, I take issue with the OP's logic. Atheism = The West. The West = modern. Modernity = corrupt. And yet somehow Atheism ≠ corrupt? What sort of logic is this?

Yes there are specific trends of modernity that I criticize but I've never said the west is corrupt.

Not once in this entire thread have I said that.

Rev. Jupiter
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 01:35 AM
Not all atheists are secular humanists either.

I don't consider myself one.

This doesn't change the fact that the underlying assumptions of modern atheism are derived from secular humanism.

As I stated previously, if more atheists looked to Traditional non-theistic worldviews rather than silly post-Enlightenment constructs I'd take them seriously.

In other words, something like the Samkhya or Cārvāka schools of India or the early Socratic schools of Greece is a lot more intelligent than whatever swill a tool like Dawkins could hawk to the plebeian masses.


Yes there are specific trends of modernity that I criticize but I've never said the west is corrupt.

Not once in this entire thread have I said that.

Didn't have to say it. Modernity is an exclusively Western construct and it is synonymous with the post-French Revolution West.

King Sitric
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 01:35 AM
The very Rev. Jupiter....

I gave the example of Dawkins God Delusion as it is very accessible for those who are beginning to doubt their faith.

Maybe the works of Arthur Schopenhauer 'The World as Will and Idea' where Schopenhauer advocated Buddhism, (Buddhists don't believe in a god as such) and Friederich Nietzsche - 'The Anti-Christ' might be a little heavy reading!

Oh btw, there is a plethora of German philosphers that advocated atheism and reason, I'm sure that you are very familar with!

Caledonian
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 01:43 AM
I'm sure that more atheists are politically left than politically right if you look at the entire world but in my personal experience, most atheists I've met are pretty conservative.



I agree.



Atheists only reject the absolute morals like the 10 commandments. Most Christian morals are just cultural morals that society invented; they later found a matching passage in the bible to support these morals.

This means that atheists are just as likely to follow these morals as Christians are; atheists aren't without morals after all.

And, culture is also irrelevant for most part. Most atheists will even celebrate Christian holidays because these events are more social events than they are religious events.



The root of atheism is the lack of believe in supernatural things. I do not believe in multiculturalism and am an atheist. Nobody influenced me into being an atheist either because I never believed in supernatural things (excluding the regular monster and ghost believes most little kids have when I was a little kid).


I'm sure that more atheists are politically left than politically right if you look at the entire world but in my personal experience, most atheists I've met are pretty conservative.

I have no problems with political leftism.

[Of course I'm on the extreme left when it concerns political classifications.]

My only problems with modern leftism is it's borrowing of Marxist ideology in terms of cultural and social interpretations along with it's embracement of ineffective democracy.

[It's those ideologies I wish to see purged entirely.]


Atheists only reject the absolute morals like the 10 commandments. Most Christian morals are just cultural morals that society invented; they later found a matching passage in the bible to support these morals.

This means that atheists are just as likely to follow these morals as Christians are; atheists aren't without morals after all.

And then you have atheists like me who take it a step further who are skeptical of the existence of morals along with ethics altogether believing them to be cultural fictions that don't really exist at all beyond fantastical social delusion.

As for me I follow my own principles where I try very hard to live by collective guidelines but when it concerns my individual self preservation versus the collective one I will not allow myself to be sacrificed for the collective either in that I would rather have a bounty on my head than to be a slave.

[There must be a balance between individualism and collectivism otherwise in either extreme there is only chaos.]

[For me I believe in social collective order but one does not need to believe in moral or ethical cultural fictions to support the concept.]

[I'm not going for a minute pretend there is some final be all answer for every social conflict of interests seperate from human beings that governs social relations.]


And, culture is also irrelevant for most part. Most atheists will even celebrate Christian holidays because these events are more social events than they are religious events.

For me culture isn't irrelevant in that it's a valuable and useful vehicle for social cohesion.

It should not be disregarded so easily......


The root of atheism is the lack of believe in supernatural things. I do not believe in multiculturalism and am an atheist. Nobody influenced me into being an atheist either because I never believed in supernatural things (excluding the regular monster and ghost believes most little kids have when I was a little kid).

Well said.

Rev. Jupiter
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 01:49 AM
Maybe the works of Arthur Schopenhauer 'The World as Will and Idea' where Schopenhauer advocated Buddhism, (Buddhists don't believe in a god as such) and Friederich Nietzsche - 'The Anti-Christ' might be a little heavy reading!

Why bother with Schopenhauer when the actual source material, the innumerable Buddhist texts, are readily available online?

Just to clarify, it's not atheism I take issue with. What I take issue with is the assumption that modern claimants to the title are as legitimately non-theistic as they claim, and that the modern "atheist" paradigm is in any way philosophically sound. Near as I can tell, modern "atheists" have replaced one superstition with another, one petty deity for another.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 02:03 AM
This doesn't change the fact that the underlying assumptions of modern atheism are derived from secular humanism.

As I stated previously, if more atheists looked to Traditional non-theistic worldviews rather than silly post-Enlightenment constructs I'd take them seriously.

In other words, something like the Samkhya or Cārvāka schools of India or the early Socratic schools of Greece is a lot more intelligent than whatever swill a tool like Dawkins could hawk to the plebeian masses.



Didn't have to say it. Modernity is an exclusively Western construct and it is synonymous with the post-French Revolution West.


This doesn't change the fact that the underlying assumptions of modern atheism are derived from secular humanism.

Well I don't embrace alot of modern atheism in that I see myself as a atheist outsider existing on the fringes of modern atheist popularism in that in many ways I see myself as a heretical atheist in the face of other atheists with my differing perspectives.

I certainly don't suscribe to secular humanism probally because I have nihilist tendencies.


As I stated previously, if more atheists looked to Traditional non-theistic worldviews rather than silly post-Enlightenment constructs I'd take them seriously.

You will find that I criticize alot of leftovers of the philosophical enlightenment era that just keep on finding their way into our existence like invicible undying living dead corpses they present themselves as.


Socratic schools of Greece is a lot more intelligent than whatever swill a tool like Dawkins could hawk to the plebeian masses.
I like more pre- Socratic forms of philosophy myself like that of the position Nietzsche supported.


Didn't have to say it. Modernity is an exclusively Western construct and it is synonymous with the post-French Revolution West.

Fair enough. I will admit that there are entire segments of modernity that I think are just hopeless to the point of being a lost cause that are just better of getting rid of where I do believe there is a level of madness and self destructive instances of modernity to the point of absurdity to which there is no possible reform to fix them.

However atheism has existed long before the post - French revolution so I don't see how you can see it in the same mix.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 02:11 AM
Why bother with Schopenhauer when the actual source material, the innumerable Buddhist texts, are readily available online?

Just to clarify, it's not atheism I take issue with. What I take issue with is the assumption that modern claimants to the title are as legitimately non-theistic as they claim, and that the modern "atheist" paradigm is in any way philosophically sound. Near as I can tell, modern "atheists" have replaced one superstition with another, one petty deity for another.

Schopenhauer merely made it all more indepth and consumable for a larger reading audience.

So in a certain level Schopenhauer is a important figure I think in philosophy along with Nietzsche as well.

They certainly to some levels have been primarily influential on me.

locc
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 02:34 AM
Rev. Jupiter, isn't the atheism you're describing more like a culture than a religion?



And then you have atheists like me who take it a step further who are skeptical of the existence of morals along with ethics altogether believing them to be cultural fictions that don't really exist at all beyond fantastical social delusion.


I'm pretty sure that it's already proven that morals are a social construct but that some of these morals are based on hard-wired survival instincts and common sense (killing eachother over small things would not benefit society, for example).



For me culture isn't irrelevant in that it's a valuable and useful vehicle for social cohesion.

It should not be disregarded so easily...


I only meant that it was irrelevant for what I was explaining.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 02:51 AM
Rev. Jupiter, isn't the atheism you're describing more like a culture than a religion?



I'm pretty sure that it's already proven that morals are a social construct but that some of these morals are based on hard-wired survival instincts and common sense (killing eachother over small things would not benefit society, for example).



I only meant that it was irrelevant for what I was explaining.


Rev. Jupiter, isn't the atheism you're describing more like a culture than a religion?

I think what Rev is saying is that specific religious emblems have manifested themselves into social culture over the years while not retaining their traditional religious status in which specific philosophical schools tied into atheism have been taking advantage of without question.

[Examples like God being transformed into the state and so on.]

[The power of the church being transformed into the power of the state.]

[Religious dogma being transformed under the guise of social politics or ideology.]



[The grace or bliss of the divine being transformed into social conformity.]

[Divine heresy being transformed into the concept of criminality.]

[Heaven on earth under the kingdom of God being transformed into a earthly social utopia or achieved means of economical equilibrium.]

[Religious salvation being transformed to the individual being disposed to give their lives away to social institutionalism in order to be saved.]


I'm pretty sure that it's already proven that morals are a social construct

They are only I take it a step further in calling them delightful fairy tales used to lull people to sleep and into mental submission.

For me the real issues isn't about what is right, wrong, good, and evil as those are only ridiculous cultural fables in that the real crux of the matter revolves around control or conformity by enforcement to implemented norms against deviancy.


but that some of these morals are based on hard-wired survival instincts and common sense

Most people confuse simple interactions and mechanisms with moral belief where in all actuality there is no morality or ethics involved beyond hearsay followed by devoted faith of a given issue.


(killing eachother over small things would not benefit society, for example).

No it would not benefit society but that still doesn't posit there are definate ends in universal existence that can be defined or embraced in positing a positive and negative to every instance of social interaction either.

Rev. Jupiter
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 04:25 AM
I think what Rev is saying is that specific religious emblems have manifested themselves into social culture over the years while not retaining their traditional religious status in which specific philosophical schools tied into atheism have been taking advantage of without question.

Yes and no.

I think that modern atheism is, due to it being almost entirely a reaction to modern religion, just as religious as the systems it opposes.

For this reason anything associated with modern expressions of atheism, including the term itself, is pretty much useless.

Anyone who is truly dedicated to non-theistic philosophy will look into Traditional non-theistic worldviews, but those folks are rare compared to the multitude of anti-religious troublemakers that populate the world today.

Wittmann
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 04:34 AM
Well, I personally believe in the separation of the Church and State, but that has been skewed to mean Religion and State, of which, there is a difference. The man actually attributed with the quote, "Separation of Church and State", that being Thomas Jefferson, was attributed, as were many of the founding fathers as saying that a state not guided by the morality and belief of religion, was doomed to fail.

"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." - Thomas Jefferson

Caledonian
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 04:45 AM
Well, I personally believe in the separation of the Church and State, but that has been skewed to mean Religion and State, of which, there is a difference. The man actually attributed with the quote, "Separation of Church and State", that being Thomas Jefferson, was attributed, as were many of the founding fathers as saying that a state not guided by the morality and belief of religion, was doomed to fail.

"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." - Thomas Jefferson

Well that's certainly a matter of opinion and perspective but seeing your chosen religious belief on your profile I can see why you would believe that although for me I must disagree entirely.


Yes and no.

I think that modern atheism is, due to it being almost entirely a reaction to modern religion, just as religious as the systems it opposes.

For this reason anything associated with modern expressions of atheism, including the term itself, is pretty much useless.

Anyone who is truly dedicated to non-theistic philosophy will look into Traditional non-theistic worldviews, but those folks are rare compared to the multitude of anti-religious troublemakers that populate the world today.

Well I'll give you your share by agreeing that there is a bit of zealous bravado when it concerns modern atheism to which many of the modern atheist movement will intentionally persecute those who have any semblance of religious belief by all accounts of mockery.

I'm one of those atheists that doesn't intentionally go out of my way seeking to do all of that although I'm not afraid to share my atheism in expressing myself either.

Even as a atheist I understand why religion exists existentially, religiously, socially, and politically in that despite believing it all to be a nonsensical charade through beliefs myself I do understand it's subtle simplistic forms of usefulness in why there are those who wish to keep it alive.

Infact I'm fine with all of that in that one cannot deny it's intriguing mind boggling usefulness politically,socially, and existentially amongst specific individuals it caters to.

[People ultimately will believe in anything they want to whether it be absurd or horrendous in that is just a fact of life where there is no level of arguement that will stop all of that.]

I admit I'm not comfortable with religion but I understand full well that there is no getting rid of it either where I therefore tolerate it with a mild neutral disdain.

locc
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 11:37 AM
Yes and no.

I think that modern atheism is, due to it being almost entirely a reaction to modern religion, just as religious as the systems it opposes.

For this reason anything associated with modern expressions of atheism, including the term itself, is pretty much useless.

If you mean that the only reason you consider it a religion is because it is a reaction to modern religion, I disagree. If, however, you also mean that the atheists of today have too much other stuff (like AlaricLachlan explained) that they believe in, I agree that you can call it a religion or at the very least: Just as bad as a religion.


but those folks are rare compared to the multitude of anti-religious troublemakers that populate the world today.

With "troublemakers", do you mean the people who challenge the religious believes of other people? Why is this so wrong? If these believers openly express their opinions, should they be immune to critic? I think that people should be prepared to have their believes questioned if they publicly display them.


They are only I take it a step further in calling them delightful fairy tales used to lull people to sleep and into mental submission.

For me the real issues isn't about what is right, wrong, good, and evil as those are only ridiculous cultural fables in that the real crux of the matter revolves around control or conformity by enforcement to implemented norms against deviancy.

I agree.


Most people confuse simple interactions and mechanisms with moral belief where in all actuality there is no morality or ethics involved beyond hearsay followed by devoted faith of a given issue.

No it would not benefit society but that still doesn't posit there are definate ends in universal existence that can be defined or embraced in positing a positive and negative to every instance of social interaction either.

Morals don't have to be absolute to be morals. Like killing because you don't like someone can be wrong but killing because you need to save your life can be right.

I personally think, like I said, that this is just survival instinct, hard-wired into us to make sure that societies can function but these things seem to be included in the definition of morals.

Caledonian
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 02:40 PM
If you mean that the only reason you consider it a religion is because it is a reaction to modern religion, I disagree. If, however, you also mean that the atheists of today have too much other stuff (like AlaricLachlan explained) that they believe in, I agree that you can call it a religion or at the very least: Just as bad as a religion.



With "troublemakers", do you mean the people who challenge the religious believes of other people? Why is this so wrong? If these believers openly express their opinions, should they be immune to critic? I think that people should be prepared to have their believes questioned if they publicly display them.



I agree.



Morals don't have to be absolute to be morals. Like killing because you don't like someone can be wrong but killing because you need to save your life can be right.

I personally think, like I said, that this is just survival instinct, hard-wired into us to make sure that societies can function but these things seem to be included in the definition of morals.



Morals don't have to be absolute to be morals.

There's no such thing as moral or ethical objectivism where instead all beliefs are merely reduced to subjectivism,relativism, and solipsism.

There is no absolute standard or ideal.

There is only the power of will.



Like killing because you don't like someone can be wrong but killing because you need to save your life can be right.

For me that sentence doesn't make any sense because it only alludes to a fictional cultural script in it's interpretations of specific actions.

For me there is no right, wrong, good, and evil when it concerns killing.

[For me all those words revolve around fictional cultural scripts and metanarratives.]

Killing is a natural phenomena and conflict of existence when it concerns life.

Given a specific situation killing can become necessity depending where you are at in life.





I personally think, like I said, that this is just survival instinct, hard-wired into us to make sure that societies can function but these things seem to be included in the definition of morals.

You will find that dogma of all kinds like that of morals or ethics is alot like those of religion where there are specific classes of people that try to make sure their emblems keep being worshipped within society merely for control.

It's no surprise why the upper classes like all thought devoted to morals and ethics for it is they who command that of law.

[They of course fool most people but not all.]

locc
Thursday, December 30th, 2010, 08:55 PM
We probably just didn't fully understand eachother because I have the exact same opinion about morals like you; I find myself agreeing with that whole post.

Wittmann
Wednesday, January 5th, 2011, 08:47 AM
Well that's certainly a matter of opinion and perspective but seeing your chosen religious belief on your profile I can see why you would believe that although for me I must disagree entirely.

And I can be perfectly happy knowing that, I am not one of those "Shove my views down your throat" Christians, which annoys me more then anything. I personally don't believe God actively participates in our daily life, I am far happier to do it with my own will then asking for help, it's also that I doubt he cares wether or not I make that traffic light, or if they still have a copy of the new film at the store.

Anyway,what I can tell from talking to you some, is you feel the same way, although Athiest, you have the same opinion of "I'll tell you what I believe if you ask, but I don't care what you believe".

My two cents?