What being an atheist means in practical terms

I am not talking about Proverbs, mate. Did you miss the opening line of my post?

Have you heard of that Biblical Book? Did you not realize that Solomon wrote it (even though my post explained this)? Or was it, for some reason, not clear to you that everything in the post, pertained only to Ecclesiastes?

I'd love to understand, where I lost you, mate.






The only explanation I can speculate, is that you jumped to, and read, just part of the middle of my post, which seems odd. But not as odd as the idea of you still thinking I was referring at all to Proverbs, in the line of mine, you quote, had you read either the beginning or ending of my post.

 

Nice turn of phrase, in your evocative description's imagery (enlarged & bolded).

But your following paragraph's analysis skimps, a bit. You only speak of the good that life brings to sinners, who don't seem to "deserve" it. The other half, which Solomon "bemoans," is all the hardship that befalls the saintly, or just good people, and faithful followers of Yaweh's/Jewish law. And Solomon was not an Atheist, and probably not an Agnostic, either.

What I find most interesting, is that this wisest of men never even considered, it appears, the idea that this seeming disposition of life, toward any individual, might be changed by anything other than emulating the society's vaulted ideals of faith, charity, and so forth.

His own grandfather, after all, (King David) had initially been an outlaw, constantly pursued by King Saul-- upon whose life, God had smiled. But it was, according to the Bible, Saul's loss of faith, turning to necromancers & fortune tellers (because of his concerns about David, usurping his throne), that had led God to turn against Saul, and favor more greatly, David (who had already been living a somewhat charmed life). Could David's bravery, or just something else about his character, have CAUSED God, to increase His favor, showered upon him?

Or are the Bible's explanations of events being due to God's favor, in good part, fictional, with the story of David's rise better attributed to the maxim, fortune favors the bold?

 

Doesn't matter if its Proverbs or Ecclesiastes or anything else in the OT .. Nowhere is the claim made that deeds are of no benefit in the eyes of God. This claim of yours is simply not true.

 

Could be truth to what you say. Still, in Christianity, which is the fulfillment, quickening, or pinnacle of Judaism, there is one straight, narrow path to salvation. And all else misses the mark.

 

Well, that's not exactly what I had claimed. I'd said, from my memory, that in Ecclesiastes, the philosophy that the righteous gain some favor, from God, and the wicked get their just desserts, is called out, for the patent fallacy that it is. I noted that, at that time, here was no "heaven," in the Hebrew theology (I don't know that Jews believe in heaven, even now). So, for that author, getting a "reward in heaven," was not on the table. The only real possible time, to tangibly receive a benefit, from God, for being "good," would be while one was alive. And, based on visible evidence, combined with what was presumed to be pleasing behavior, in God's eyes, there was no profit in it, to speak in a very transactional manner; Ecclesiastes does appraise some things, in just such a manner.

What you mean, by your phrase, "deeds are of no benefit in the eyes of God," I have no idea, since that is your own terminology & phrasing. But, as I jumped online for quotes supporting my statements, I found something interesting. First, I did find the basic idea, of which I had been speaking:

Chapter 7, Verse 15

15 In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:

the righteous perishing in their righteousness,
and the wicked living long in their wickedness

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1&version=NIV&interface=amp


another version is:

15 In my futile life, I have seen everything: the upright person perishing in uprightness and the wicked person surviving in wickedness.

https://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=25&bible_chapter=7

I also found many examples of a dispirited, pessimistic philosophy, though did not copy much of it, for I felt that anyone with any interest, should have no trouble, reading it for themselves. There is, after all, a limit of how much material we are supposed to SNIP from any website. But the headings on many of the chapters, in the editions I perused, frequently used the word "meaningless." The meaninglessness of this; that other aspect of life is meaningless, etc. At one point, the author says something like that dying was misery, but it is better than the misery of living. Yet, the most fortunate of all, are those who have have never been born. Not exactly a quote for an inspirational calendar, or a bumper sticker.

Here is a little bit of the beginning of that book, in one of its many forms (from the same first link, above):

Ecclesiastes 1
New International Version

Everything Is Meaningless
1 The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:

2 “Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”

3 What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.

Wisdom Is Meaningless
12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I applied my mind to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens. What a heavy burden God has laid on mankind! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

15 What is crooked cannot be straightened;
what is lacking cannot be counted.
[End SNIP]

I did not read through the entire text though, as I'd said, it is rather short. Unfortunately, I no longer have the particular edition of the Bible, in which I had originally read this Book, for there is a pretty wide variety, among the very many translations, which exist. It also occurred to me that, over time, these modern translations are revised at a much quicker pace, than the original Scriptures (which, themselves, were recopied, with revisions, a number of times, in antiquity).

One thing that immediately jumped out at me, for instance, is that my now lost Bible (which I'd received in my Catholic, Confirmation class, I think) which had great footnotes, called Ecclesiastes a work of Solomon. The translations I was just reading, however, say that the author is actually either a later King, or suggest (the language was not definitively clear) that it may not have been a king at all, but had only portrayed himself as Solomon, as a literary device, to benefit from his reputation. (And this charlatan, nevertheless, wrote something that made the cut, judged as "inspired").

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what to believe. I can't, in my own mind, feel confident that things have not been changed for theological, doctrinal, political, cultural (P.C.), or even just "public relations" type, reasons. It makes me want to find an old copy of that Bible, from which I developed my view. Because, skimming these now (which seem a bit longer than my old version), I don't think my overall impression would be the same. But without seeing the lost version, I cannot rule out that I over-emphasized that idea (above) from Ch. 7, verse 15., at that time, which has only grown, with time.

So, this is not an argument I am presenting, for a change, but just some of my thoughts, impressions, and musings, in case you or anyone finds any of it worthwhile, or cares to comment on any of it, or contribute their own, related thoughts.

 

Two things. First you have a very good memory. Second, you appear to have been correct in stating that Proverbs and Ecclesiastes seem to have been written either by one person with a split personality, or by two different people. So you were essentially correct. Apparently the consensus now is that the Preacher was not Solomon. But they used to think that it was. So your old Bible reflected that.

 

I don't go out of my way to fight culture wars, but good luck trying to get me to worship. If staying at home on the weekend playing video games instead of sitting in a church pew is akin to self-worship, then English is a terrible language in making distinctions.

While I have come to a different conclusion about my existence, the idea that everything I say, do or think is completely meaningless on the other side of the universe or in a billion years time, played a part in my 2020 descent into depression. I only got out of it with my newfound beliefs which I can tell you about if you ask.

 

Your mistake was relating this to God --- this is a man Philosophizing .. looking out into the world .. telling you what he sees. Not that God views deeds as unbeneficial ..

When God is being discussed .. it is the reverse Ecc 5

Like Proverbs .. Ecclesiastes is wise sayings .. passed down from one generation to the next . Wisdom writings .. and good ones .. probably my two favorite books of the Bible.

Clearly deeds are viewed as being beneficial .. God is up in heaven .. your down here ..

While I do not believe all of the Bible is "Inspired" not a literalist .. I do find these two books "Inspirational"

 

I really don't care what you do, I expect the same in return.

 

I take it you don't believe in the Bible?

 

A silly assertion given I just stated a few parts of the Bible in which I believe.. and there are numerous others.

What perhaps you really meant - but not able to articulate was "You don't believe the the entire Bible is the living word of God" The black white paradigm to which the fundamentalists and literalists adhere

Like the vast majority of Christians .. I do not accept this premise - as it is so obviously false. ..

I

 

I'm curious about what lifted you from depression. And was the inverse the cause, or is your rescue a paradigm shift. Also are you better off now than before your descent, if there is a distinguishable reference point. Or was it simply a lifelong muddle, where you realized, whoa I must get out of this.

 

And this is why in my post I said I don't believe deities exist. I don't label myself an atheist. If asked, I tell people I don't believe in deities; they are the ones who assign "atheist" to me.

If being an atheist gets a person somehow, involuntarily, assigned a religion maybe we should differentiate. You know, "Atheist" for those who want it to be a religion and "atheist" for those who simply don't believe in deities. Sort of like people saying "a god" and "The God".

So... if you have to label me I would like to be an "atheist"... small "A".

Thanks
Rich

 

Ah, there's your chosen definition....one of many definitions. By this definition the Proud Boys, Navy Seals, Masons, Boy Scouts, Neo- Nazis, Republicans...are religions.

 

Scary huh?
Yes in my studies on religion this:



as underlined is the conclusion I came to, which surprisingly I later discovered is the same conclusion the supreme court came to and actually existed in philosophy, and that conclusion is by far the least understood by people generally in our civics/culturally deprived society.

Why? Because initially it made no sense to me that the BoR would reserve the right to 'exercise my religion' and I damn sure needed to find out exactly why the word exercise was put in there and it was the first word to be (I believe unanimously ommitted) in all the state constitutions, effectively removing your right to exercise your religion that the federal constitution gives lip service. The courts as they are presently set up have no legitimate authority to adjudicate religious matters, nor does congress have the legitimate authority to infringe on and convert religious matters to secular laws. But we like it that way. right?

Imagine what would happen if these same people ever figured it out that 'Reserved' rights are not under but above the jurisdiction of the guv? Even more scary huh? Not to worry though people are so busy fighting each other and the guv is so busy morphing our rights into absolute guv control it wont happen in any of our lifetimes or our childrens. The states converted (without a democratic vote) your right to exercise your religion to the 'right to pray'. You have no right ot exercise your religion in any state of the union that I am aware. Just be a mormon and get a 3rd wife and see what happens to your right to exercise your religion!

That said simply naming a boat load of groups as you did has nothing to do with them being a religion, each must be examined according to its own merit or lack thereof, and determinations made from there.

We the people have no valid religious representation in our courts since the courts legitimate jurisdiction extends no further than 'under' the constitution, although admittedly they did get the indian case correct.

While you can disagree with it, it does drive to the core and substance of religion, 'that to which one is bound' often connected to the divine but not limited to the divine/supernatural.

 

That differentiation is up to you. Till you do, unfortunately the category you fall into is "atheist". Now if you have direct proof that God doesn't exist.......

 

I have no problem being called or labeled an atheist. I even used to call myself an atheist. Now, that some people are suggesting that being an atheist somehow places me into a religious group, I just want to be known as a guy who doesn't believe in deities.

 

That requires a leap of faith, just like believing there is a God. As much as you don't want it to be, Atheism is a religion by believing there is no God without any proof.

 

Do you believe evolution and the big bang to be true?

 

Like Kokoloco you seem to have a problem with the definition of religion. His is so vague the definition is meaningless. Yours is the disbelief in a god makes it a religion? So, if you do not believe in Zeus that is a religion?

 

What if they also believe that a cow can't jump over the moon, or that you can't ladle broth with a fork? Since when is practicality and basic science a religion?

 

Sorry, I am agnostic on the Ancient Greek religions that believes in Zeus.

 

Please scientifically prove there is no God. I'll wait.

 

You arent making sense, the 'meaning' of religion is polysemous, hence there are several 'definitions'. You cant expect people to read your mind if you fail to be explicitly clear which context you are using it in. Which version are you talking about are we supposed to know you are talking about or do we need to make an appointment your psychic advisor?

 

Since the concept of a God is obviously the unknown. Then it is up to you to prove the unknown, because you have entered the unknown into the equation. Until you can prove it, the Atheist is free to believe and do whatever they want, to live, love, breathe, work, play, study, and explore the natural world into which they were born. That is not a religion. It is simply life.

More than belief, I know that God lives because he visited me in spirit and I recognized him. But Only God can prove his existence to another. It is not a light or frivolous matter. It is the straight gate, pivotal to salvation.