Why follow God and what makes it moral?

Many of the values that are shared by most of the individuals living in western societies are derived from the works of Aristotle and Plato. Values, particularly in modern society, are not created in a vacuum.

 

Ignored for the inability to converse without the use of vulgarity.

 

Well of course they are not YOUR values,,, you neither own those values nor are you the originator of those values. But it is good to know that you those values are not 'the values of todays society.' Well, that notion is totally demolished by the existence of this forum and the "logical" debates that are attempted by so many on this forum. So, in essence, you are saying that those ideologies passed on by such people as Aristotle, Plato, Darwin and others are of NO VALUE? That society does not look upon those teachings as being valuable?

 

And from where do you obtain the information and thought processes by which you arrive at conclusions? Even the language in which you think, the grammar, the words you use, the structure, etc. was greatly influenced by long dead humans. If you don't have a well educated mind, which includes philosophy, history, culture, language, etc. then it's likely that what your mind lets you "decided what is proper for you" is mostly influenced by modern demagogues who prey on the ignorant.

 

Another truth has come to the surface by the admission of tomteapack. Atheism has no rules, no laws, no moral values..... Geee. I do believe that some other folks on this forum have already pointed out those same characteristics of Atheism. I just love it when people start telling the TRUTH.

 

LOL--now atheists have congregations. Each atheist comes to atheism in their own way. No two atheists have exactly the same beliefs, for there is no set of beliefs in atheism. We all have ONE common belief, however we phrase it and that is a lack of belief in any god or gods. Other than that, very few of us have many similarities, lol, I imagine I am one of the few at heists, or humans for that matter, that does not care for music.

 

Are we in kindergarten?

 

I'm not! Are you?

 

Many atheists are highly spiritual persons who follow various ethical systems, including, among other things, natural law. Though I am an atheist, I am also a Unitarian Universalist and look to the teachings of Jesus for some guidance in my interactions with others. Other atheists believe in the State, which makes them not unlike many Christians who put government and nation before God.

"Atheist" is merely the opposite of "theist". One who describes one's self as a theist gives no actual clue as to one's value as that theist may be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jew or a follower of Thor or a Wiccan.

 

Yes there is a set of beliefs amongst Atheists:

1: Atheists have a belief that God does not exist.
2: Atheists declare that Jesus is not the Son of God, because God, in their belief, does not exist.

There is your set of beliefs.

Now as for the 'congregations'... Duh... you have approximately 14 nationally known Atheist organizations (congregations) that tend to some of the affairs of Atheists.

 

Then you stand in dispute of the claims made by tomteapack... cool...

The first emphasized point above "many atheists are highly spiritual persons"... If that were true, then Atheists cannot deny or denounce the existence of God because God is described almost universally as being 'spirit'. So for atheists to be 'highly spiritual persons' they would be required to recognize the spiritual existence of God.

The second emphasized point above "[/COLOR]who follow various ethical systems, including, among other things, natural law." clearly shows that Atheists do have a moral system to which they adhere to, though that/those moral systems be varied. Hey tomteapack,,, what have you to say about your fellow Atheist denouncing your claims?

As to your closing paragraph.... So what?

 

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

I am not required to recognize the spiritual existence of any such being and even if such a being exists, I would not refer to it as anything other than part of the universe and therefore not the Is. He/She/It is no more or less than I.

It is pointing out that your creation of characteristics for atheism are misapplied. Really, it is no different than Tom's mischaracterization of religion, and Christianity in particular, as the rantings of long dead, primitive, ignorant ment.

 

In order for you or any other Atheist to be "highly spiritual", you are submitting to the requirements of 'spiritual' laws. Those spiritual laws are laws and they are requisites. If you are now contending that you are not bound by any spiritual laws, then you are in essence contradicting your assertion of being 'highly spiritual'. You can't be highly spiritual and deny or reject the spiritual laws.

My creation of characteristics? Excuse me... I am only going by what others are saying .... especially when those others are the ones that declare that they are Atheists. I firmly believe in 'if you want to know something, take the inquiry to the source'. If the atheist speaks about what atheism is, then who am I to question him/her with regard to what constitutes atheism? Of course, if what is stated oversteps what the conventional definition of atheism is and moves into the court of God, then I will question the intent of that particular atheist.

 

Matthew 7:12 ... "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."


Even a masochist wouldn't want to have his own boundaries violated. Point being is that you would hope that a masochist would follow the golden rule and not violate your own personal boundaries. "Just say no" was my silly way of bringing this to your attention.

 

I agree, but there are underlying reasons for this 'sense'. i.e Do right, no bad consequences, do wrong, bad consequences.

I also agree with this to an extent but to what extent is what I am discussing.

The fear of punishment = fear of consequences .. There are consequences for going against sound, moral principles. This leads to understanding right and wrong, don't you agree ?

 

What is 'right" and what is 'wrong'? Would you please provide adequate input on those subjects which will clearly and unambiguously define your intended use of those terms? Please do not leave anything undisclosed that can be used later as a means of defeating your intended purpose.

Please provide an example of "whatever facility" which would cause an avoidance of punishment.

 

Could be anything a given situation makes possible. A common facility is flight.

Concerning the case in question, though, it's typically about obeying commands out of fear.

 

Ahhh! As in 'flight' to avoid prosecution. In other words, a dread or fear of being punished. OK.

Do you, without question, obey the laws of your community? If so, why? If not, why?

The way I see it, it is potentially a 'fear' based thing, but could also be a 'rewards' based thing. Unless, you are an absolute, to the letter of the definitions (both common and juristic) "Outlaw". Someone who defies the law, simply because he/she does not care about any set of laws. But you see, there is no-one that is not subject to the 'law' or 'laws' and 99.999999% of the people will obey the law as a result of fear that is instilled in them. Whether those laws are what could be called 'internal' or 'external' no-one is exempt from those laws. You and or anyone else who decides that they are not subject to the 'law' or 'laws' will subsequently pay the consequence of violating that/those law/s. You need money, go rob a bank and see if the law(s) don't catch up with you in one way or another.

 

LOL.

It's called having a job/life. Maybe in a few years when you're not a 19 year old kid living at home with mommy and daddy you'll understand.

And believe me, Islamoapologists like you are not very high on my list of phobias.

Tell yourself whatever you have to, though, to feel like you're not on the losing side of the argument.

 

I've had a job for three years now. Maybe you should keep the history of your own youth to yourself and not assume its everyone elses, eh?

LOL Nice to see you are in fact that scared you didnt actually reply to my points! haha

 

The Tao bears all things;
Harmony nurtures them;
Nature shapes them;
Use completes them.

Each follows the Way and honours harmony,
Not by law,
But by being.

The Way bears, nurtures, shapes, completes,
Shelters, comforts, and makes a home for them.

Bearing without possessing,
Nurturing without taming,
Shaping without forcing,
This is harmony.

Who made these laws that you claim to be so rigid and why, in consideration of the OP, am I bound to follow them?

I see. So you can't think for yourself. Perhaps you can point me to those others, because there's really no point in having a discussion with someone who only parrots what others say.

Lots of people label themselves things. That doesn't make them right, or, at the very least, it doesn't often make them the sole authority on the subject.

Question away.

 

Nice writing. What relevance does it have and what is the source of the data?

If you are claiming to be one of those 'highly spiritual persons' that was previously spoken of then, Yes, you would be bound by spiritual laws. Who wrote those spiritual laws... what religious following do you have? There is only one creator, so apply whatever name you desire.

Quite presumptive of you. Why should I even bother giving my own rendition of atheism. I am not an atheist, so I lean on the understanding of professed atheists to provide such a definition. In that manner of action on my part, it cannot be said that I have mislabeled any Atheist... if there is a mislabeling, then it would be at the hands of other professed atheists. Squabble amongst your own peers (other atheists) over who has the most accurate definition.

Perhaps you can quit playing the stupid role and simply use the search function that is provided as a tool for everyone on this forum. Quit being lazy.. besides, I am not obligated to do your curiosity research for you, neither am I obligated to adhere to any of the so-called "logic" that would require me to validate a claim. That form of logic is used by 'non-theists'... so have at it.

And your point? Do you think that was an earth shattering revelation?

Are you claiming that Atheism is the modern replacement for God and subsequently controls Gods court?

 

It has relevance only if you want it to have relevance. The source is the Tao Te Ching, which I find to be one of the best spiritual texts.

Again, I am not aware of any such laws that are authoritative and binding. That's your thing. I am not religious. I do understand the confusion, as spirituality is often thought to mean a belief in a "higher power", but that is just language that attempts to describe that which cannot be described. I am my own creator.

Excuse me, I didn't realize that presumption was solely your realm in these threads.

I don't think atheism is the "thing" that you think it is. As for God's court, where do you think it is and how does one go about controlling it?

 

God has a court? How do you know this? I thought you said God was outside the realm of the understandable? You're a man of total contradiction mate.

 

Are you now suggesting that you do not know the meaning of the term 'court' in all of its various definitions? Well of course God has a Court,,,, just like all of us have a court; just like this forum is a court of public opinion being engaged by volunteer members of society. What is so difficult to understand about that?

I did say that God is beyond our ability to attain total comprehension of God... however if you recall from the past, I also stipulated that God does reveal certain things about His nature to those who He is willing to allow to know those things. So where is the contradiction? The contradiction is only a shadow in YOUR mind.