God is not dead....

I think that when people say God is dead they are more often than not referring to the God of the Jewish and Christian Bible and by extension the Quran. Maybe the way that God is envisioned in the Biblical narrative is, but God is not dead as long as people continue to worship and teach about that God.

You see we give God life. I know that sounds the opposite of what most of us were taught but in fact God cannot exist in the world without a population to discuss this God. This goes back to the ancient world and the first Gods worshipped. Humans, in an attempt to understand their world, envisioned the Gods and over time they developed into our modern vision of God. Through our own sacred mythology we developed a religion to acknowledge and in some cases worship a God or probably a more accurate way of saying it an interpretation of God. When people gather to do ritual, pray and commune as a faith God is alive.

The influence of God on today's world is clear in many ways and some not noticed always but they are there for those who choose to look. Faith driven charity and social programs far exceed the efforts of governments around the world. That is just one thing.

But I would argue and strongly that faith in a God is not something needed in our culture, nor is it needed to be a good person. However faith in God does drive people to do great things and that is what makes God alive in our society.

 

When people say God is dead they are generally referring to the fact that fewer and fewer people are having faith in a religion and instead, relying on themselves.

 

So are you suggesting that it is hyperbole?

 

When Nietzsche said that God is dead, he meant that modern knowledge has obsoleted God, and furthermore every big idea about life, and that humanity would need to find something new to strive for. He also acknowledged that Christian morality would take longer to die.

 

Not at all, in fact I happen to think its true also, a simple look around the world today and you can see that there are less and less people truly following a religion.

Even the Islamic problems in the Middle East are being done just as much for geopolitical reasons as they are for faith.

 

But he was simply wrong........

- - - Updated - - -

Fewer people following does not mean God is dead. It means simply fewer people are religious. But the other thing is that religion is evolving to understand God differently. So I am not sure why you need to insist that God is dead.

 

Excellent OP statement; and mind you, I am an atheist. I might beg to differ in regards to this one statement segment of yours, "But I would argue and strongly that faith in a God is not something needed in our culture, nor is it needed to be a good person," because it seems to me that for the average person a belief in one of the major religions (and in that I include Hinduism and Buddhism) is necessary in general if for no other reason than such religions usually pound into their flocks that they need to be good people and also good citizens. But I concede that I may be wrong about that . . .

 

God Is not dead, it just doesn't give a darn.

 

Of course God is not dead, I was simply explaining the thought process behind those that do make that claim. They are not referring to the actual God, they are referring to societies belief in him.

 

But I believe that society still believes in God and that as long as even a minority do then God is not dead.

 

Correct.

That statement people make though is not necessarily that nobody believes in him but fewer and fewer seem to be doing so.

Perhaps they would be better off saying that God is dying but the point is the same.

I think you would agree that the world seems to be turning more secular, not more religious and that is their main argument.

 

What's your opinion in all of this?

 

I would agree with it.

Faith is a personal journey, at least for me it is, and although God in a society can have wonderful impacts we have also seen it have the opposite effect throughout history.

Because of that I would have to agree that faith is not necessary.

You can also be a very good person without faith although you are going to miss out on that whole Heaven thing and for those of us that do have a personal relationship with God, I can just say that they have no idea what they are missing out on.

I spent many, many years doing everything myself and ended up going to some very dark places but that has all changed now and I would never go back.

 

Do you know of any peaceful atheistic societies that have existed in the past? I know of none.

I'll explain why:

A king rules a kingdom. Everyone finds the king's laws and decrees to be fair. The king and his laws are the foundation of the kingdom's moral values and duties. When people perform an action, they are justified by the king's laws. If the king says, "You must kill a man's sheep if he kills yours.", then those actions are justified under the king's laws. Whenever a person kills a sheep, he could say, "I have proof to show you killed my sheep. Under the king's law, I have the right to kill your sheep." Even if they were to go to court, the matter would be settled, because the action is protected under the king's law. Once again, the king's laws are the foundation for their morality. Anything against what the king says would be a violation against the king and his laws.

Now, lets put you into this kingdom. Lets say you disagree with some of the laws and you view the king as a monster. Your disdain against the king's laws lacks a foundation outside of your own opinions. When you decide not to kill a man's sheep after he kills yours, when people ask, "Why haven't you killed his sheep?" it would be your opinion against the king's. Because the king is greater than you, those people can objectively throw you into prison - because, after all, you are not above that of a king.

Lets create a kingdom without a king. There are no laws or regulations to follow. People just generally learn to respect one another. However, if a person decides to kill a man's sheep because that man killed his, then who justifies his actions? If someone disagreed with those actions, then they are just as much in the right as the person who executed those actions. So, how do you resolve this issue promptly? You could gather everyone together to make a vote, but then you'd have to do that for everyone every time they had a problem. So, that wouldn't work. You could attempt to resolve the issue immediately right then and there, however, not all issues like this can or will be resolved peacefully, especially if someone has a strong emotional attachment to the sheep. So, what happens? Well, chaos is what happens. People will end up doing whatever they feel is right, and they will inevitably conflict with one another.

 

Countless atheistic Buddhist societies. The Epicureans. The Carvaka. Gora's Positive Atheism in India. The Ethical Society. And then of course there are societies that may or may not believe in Gods, but derive their morality without reference to a deity -- non-atheistic Buddhists, Jains, secularists, Taoists, etc.

 

Honestly, aside from Marxists, where are the violent atheist societies?

 

Faith is dying, belief that magic is real is dying, but belief in science is rising, belief in reason and common sense is rising, belief that we don't get our morals from ancient barbarians that accepted slavery (Jesus, Yahweh, Mohammad, etc.). Jesus is dying.

 

1) Buddhists aren't atheists.
2) Epicureans aren't a society. They are atheists who believe in the teachings of the Greek Philosopher Epicurus
3) Carvaka is a philosophy and not a society.
4) Gora? The Gora were a clan belonging to the Dhangar in India? They weren't atheists.


When I say "society" I don't mean a group of people. I mean an entire race of people under a single culture. I.E. The Egyptians, The Aztecs, The Mayans, etc.

 

One, most Buddhists are atheists. They certainly don't believe in a Creator God. That's literally one of their tenets. And what do you mean an "entire" race of people? Why don't we look at modern countries that are replete with atheists?

 

You need to go out and meet some Buddhists. As I've said before, I meet with them every weekend. Are all Buddhists atheists? No. But most are, and Buddha denied the existence of a creator God. "Gods" in Buddhism are typically either daevas (to be avoided), elevated concepts of real people (such as various Bodhisattvas, or "God" is simply a word used for buddha-nature just as pantheists call the universe itself "God", or incorporated folk deities. But yes, most of the Buddhists you'll meet out in the street are atheists. And the ones who are theists do not derive their ethics from any god.

Epicurus did form a society. It was called "the garden".

As with all philosophies and religious sects in India, societies formed around it.

A simple Google search for the terms used would have shown you that Gora was a man who founded a Positive Atheism in India.

That is a really, really bizarre definition of "society". Why is race even in the picture? People of different races can't form societies? Anyway, if we accept your definition, then there is no such thing as an atheist society, and there never has been.

 

He also said that the West was still mourning at God's funeral. Lack of religion results in a lack of morals. Society without God is self-destructive.

 

No. They believe in multiple gods. They are not atheists.

No.

No.

Simply no.

Every atheistic tribe or country written in history were not peaceful. Period.

Alright. I've gave you chance after chance after chance. You keep arguing even when there's egg on your face. You simply can't admit when you're wrong. I certainly can, and I have multiple times. I will concede especially if you provide proof. You rarely ever do this. Right now, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. So, you and GraspingForPeace are in timeout until you two can learn how to be more logical. What that means is that you'll get short replies from me, because none of you guys really deserve a well thought out response, since you guys do not give me well thought out responses.

 

Buddhists believe in multiple gods, or in this case, "Buddhas".

 

Some Buddhists believe in multiple gods. Not all. And none of them believe that morality comes from God/gods. Again, I meet with Buddhists at least once a week. Get out and meet some.

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha068.htm
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/177.htm
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda01.htm

Yes.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/garden/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism
http://wiki.epicurus.info/Epicurus'_Garden

Simply yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goparaju_Ramachandra_Rao
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/the-humanist-tradition/20th-century-humanism/gora/
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/6454444.Goparaju_Ramachandra_Rao

Now we are talking about atheistic tribes? What constitutes a tribe? And, by all means, prove it. I’ll be waiting.

I’ve provided multiple sources. You have provided none so far. We'll see if you are actually willing to concede when provided proof.

That’s pretty much what was happening already.

Speaking as someone who has provided Buddhist sources and who has actual contact with Buddhists, Buddhas are not gods. Buddhas are enlightened individuals. Each of the four sources at the top of the page either refute the idea that Buddhist believe in God or specifically clarify that Buddha was not a god himself.

 

No one argued this. I even defined what I was talking about and you still go on and on and on.

I've been arguing this since the beginning. Tribes, countries and races. I gave you multiple examples already (I.E. The Aztecs).

I can provide a source to how toilets are made. Its irrelevant to this conversation.

Fine. Lets define what an atheist is, OK? Atheists are naturalists or materialists. Buddhists are neither. Buddhists believe in the spiritual realm. Atheists do not. You can't lump them in your confused pool of silliness.