education course for ignorant atheists

[Crunchy Cat]

Pal I have been among atheist for many years, you folks have educated me to be a stronger believer, you folks have made me look deeper into science and science sustains my faith

That's because an atheist can never make you value truth more than how you feel.

 

[Big Chiller]

I think one would have to be a very pious theist to make a thread title like that i would leave it up to a very pious theist to educate a curious atheist on thiestic matters however the curious atheist would have to have an open mind open to learning.

 

[arauca]

I think one would have to be a very pious theist to make a thread title like that i would leave it up to a very pious theist to educate a curious atheist on thiestic matters however the curious atheist would have to have an open mind open to learning.

I am not pious individual , I make an attempt not to hurt my fellow man , But as I see biology and chemistry in nature , that makes me think we are not alone in this world.

 

[gmilam]

Because it is subjective, that means individuals have to call the shots on morality themselves.

In the end, we all do. You decide what you do.

 

[Yazata]

education course for ignorant atheists

I'm going to repeat JamesR's question: What education course? Offered by whom? In what subjects? Who are the "ignorant atheists" that you refer to? What are they ignorant about?

What aspects of religion should atheists (respectfully) adopt? Alain de Botton suggests a "religion for atheists" -- call it Atheism 2.0.

Who is Alain de Botton? I assume that you and Botton already know that non-theistic religions do exist out there. And in the French context, Auguste Comte's early 19'th century positivism veered (late in Comte's life) towards proposing an atheist church. (The idea's a little ridiculous in my opinion. It's a French thing.)

Peter Faust on `Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0

Who is Peter Faust? Where did the text that are you quoting (without attribution) originate?

While some of you are markedly more critical of him and his "intentions", I happen to wish for the same thing he does.

Your original post seems to drop us into the middle of an argument between unknown parties about unknown issues.

Being a former fundamentalist christian, I have a much more personal and unique perspective on religion.

Much more "personal and unique" than what? Everyone has a 'personal and unique' perspective. So what? The interesting question is why one person should take another person's perspective seriously.

Basically when you wake up from your slumber and begin to question all the ridiculous dogma you once held dear, you can't really live the same lifestyle anymore.
The problem is, religious lifestyle isn't all that bad. Sure people give lectures all day long but no place in the secular world would dare to give a sermon.

In politics it happens all the time. I don't think that it's really a good thing. Sermons can tend to become moral exhortations, delivered by true-believers in order to arouse other true-believers. The characteristic fault that arises in these siturations, illustrated by all sorts of fundamentalism, political as well as religious, is extremism and fanaticism.

Why should pastors have the monopoly on teaching values?

They don't. Probably the most influential teachers of values are parents.

We may pride ourselves on our independent thought but, why shouldn't there be people to "teach" values? The church is a fantastic community structure, there simply is no equivalent in secular society. I doubt a TED conference has anywhere near the level of comradery you'd find at my old church.

What is a "TED conference"?

In my opinion, they are basically small individualized community centers that somehow manage to forgo the sterility of any other comparable system.

Maybe so, if somebody is a self-avowed former fundamentalist who is vainly looking for a replacement "system".

While this idea of atheism 2.0 could basically be called humanism, I think his point is still very relevant. Temples and churches have been around as long as we have. I think it's endurance is proof that it's catering to some kind of need. I have yet to see a humanist church and why haven't I?"

Well, religious fundamentalism is built around intellectual belief in some set of given revelations, and even more importantly an emotional dedication to some ultimately important direction in life. With fundamentalism, everybody is already on precisely the same page and everyone is already a comrade in a shared cause.

So how do you propose to get secular people grouped onto the same intellectual page and fired up in the furtherance of a single purpose? Marxism was a textbook example of that happening, but probably not one that should be eagerly emulated. Naziism too, obviously. (The European continent has been very productive of popular fundamentalist religion-surrogates.)

Is creating a replacement fundamentalism in ostensibly secular dress really something that thoughtful and humane people should want to do?

 

[Yazata]

I sustain that atheism does not have much to offer to the society , beside no ,no ,no .

Do you believe that atheism needs to take the place of religion, and fill all the cultural and psychological roles that religion's filled during history?

I don't think that idea's realistic. Atheism is just the belief that gods don't exist. It isn't really a whole lot more than that. It isn't, nor should it be imagined as if it was, a religion surrogate.

Atheism offers to the society only selfishness, The speaker A. Bottom offers some mechanism for your loose society to be organized and become useful in charitable work, which without organization , the atheism is just mouth and no action.

Religion can be and typically is all about selfishness too. One's own personal salvation. One's possession of the one unique revelation. One's personal sense of mission. One's superiority to the heathen outsiders.

I think that selfishness is an equal-opportunity affliction and that it's found among religious and non-religious people alike. It's seemingly part of the human condition.

Charitable and humanitarian work obviously can be, and in fact typically is, done outside church contexts by groups and organizations organized for the purpose. One needn't believe in the existence of a god to become involved.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Doubtful. If you are talking about homo sapiens, we've been around for around 200,000 years, while I don't believe there were anything resembling temples or churches for more than 10,000 years, probably a lot less.

wrong. They found a house in Alaska that is 11,500 years old or older. There are ancient mines which to me suggest housing also by man made methodology other than wood and stone that date back 70,000 years
Need I go on about ancient trade routs that existed before well established ones we know of in the more modern times of 5000 years.
My conclusion is we sell the ancients short of there capabilities to invent.

What went on 150,000 years ago ? what kind of settlements could have existed in burst of time like 20,000 year spans were decay has wiped the evidence clean leaving very few clues ? How many times has there been fall and rises in society ? I don't like to bring up Bottle necks cause I don't quite understand like Walter Wagner does , but just saying. How many rises and falls in community populations . We get a glimpse of the effect in our times with events like Black death . The mini ice age and shit like that. Spanish flue pandemic and all . Little microcosm events. What about inevitable bigger events? That have occurred and yet to occur

Now I thought Homo Sapiens or very close relative with basically the same type brain functions have been around for 7 million years my self . I don't know were I got that . Maybe it had something to do with a time when we started eating meat as to grow the brain ? Who knows but the shadow.

O.K. I guess I should go look up how old the oldest of Ziggurts are before I get all crazy about it. Dirt mounts and such . Stone Hinge and the likes of other presumed ritual sites. Disturbed soils and such . Most people have a hard time distinguishing native soil from disturbed soil if it is old. That is why there are experts called Geologists .
No I am not claiming that , but I have looked at a lot of excavated soil and had geologist stroke Me with there knowledge of such . I am pretty good at telling if there was water there before . It is an E,P.A. kind of thing for building . When you get in trouble like have been known to in the past from not knowing you start to wise up to a few pit falls. Don't want to do that again kind of thing

 

[Yazata]

Indirectly. Most of theist philosophy is to help your fellow man in your community and that thought comes from god .

I think that it's more likely that it's a product of our human social instinct.

So if you don't have that command from god , you don't have such obligation , so what does that lives you with ? Self centered

Why should human beings pay any attention to commands from a god? Because god will hurt people very badly if they don't?

Self-centered.

I think that human compassion needs deeper roots than that, Arauca. It needs to have some concern with the well being of the other person.

 

[Grumpy]

arauca
"So if you don't have that command from god , you don't have such obligation , so what does that lives you with ? Self centered "

Intellect, enlightened self interest, the Golden Rule(learned in Kindergarden years before god concepts could be understood), the accumulated knowledge of humanity.