Are atheists mentally ill? The Impact of Religious Practice on Social Stability

reply to post by wildtimes


Wild, do you believe atheism has a view on how the earth came into existence ?
How does atheism account for existence, us being here ?

reply to post by randyvs


There is no one who can claim to represent all athiests unlike religious figureheads. Atheism isn't a movement with a world view. It isn't even a movement, its just individuals who don't believe in god, the same way you don't believe in the Ancient Greek gods. They just extend the disbelief to the abrahamic god.

reply to post by randyvs

Wild, do you believe atheism has a view on how the earth came into existence ?

Yes, of course they do.

How does atheism account for existence, us being here ?

You'd have to ask atheists -- but they certainly have their own beliefs about it. From what I can tell - they don't consider a "God Creator" as necessary for the perfect circumstances that have led to life on Earth.

As I said, I'm not an atheist - but the term "world-view" is not "how did life come to exist?".....
it is "how I see the world and respond to it."

reply to post by wildtimes

WILDTIMES:

CHRISTIANITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOOD PARENTING.

Good luck with your book.

The foundation of my argument did not rest on Christianity, but on the ideals of the Christian faith. In my opening statement, I divided the comments that followed by one fact: Giving is superior to taking. I then outlined a proper Christian environment based on the same ideals, as mirrored by the ideals of Objectivism and self-gratifying behaviors seen in homes where giving is not the norm. At the end, I summed it all up with the difference between Altruism and Objectivism in light of selfishness or selflessness. I will not attack you, but stick to the subject. Here was my clear foundation:

I SAID:
To me, it boils down to one thing: either we take or give.

I also said this in relation to the truth of the matter:

I SAID:

Of course, many Atheist homes are well adjusted as well. There are many who grow up in homes where parents are not self-seeking at all, but highly giving and nurturing. It can also be said that there are many homes where Christians grow up in environments where needs are not met.

Again, giving and taking are key to making it work. Christ's message to the world (NOT JUST CHRISTIANS), was to follow God's will of giving over taking. This is the key. Who did Christ come for? The sick. Who did Christ point to? The Father. What was His message? GIVING.

I SAID:

We cannot do anything in these threads but make generalizations with exceptions, but the rule can be seen easily.

Again, what is the rule? Taking or giving. Selfishness or selflessness.

I SAID:

There is no way around the fact that we live in a society shaped by Christian values, even in homes where non-christians live by these same faith-based values.

Our world is founded on inalienable rights. Apart from those rights and liberties, we are left with a lawless society of tyranny. That world is fast approaching and it is reciprocal to our degree of ProSpiracy. The ConSpiriacy is against the spirit. I am ProSpiratorial. No law is necessary if we love others.

Where does that message of Agape Love come from? It comes first from Faith, then Hope, then Love. This has a source and it is not from those who have none.

reply to post by randyvs

Hi Wild, No one in general really. Does atheism have a world view ?
Like Christianity says God created the world. Atheists don't hold that view and
often ridicule Christianity, while never stating their own world view. You see ?

I think that's the best thing about it, really. Atheism encourages people to come up with their own worldview, their own universal meaning. It gives you the chance to think for yourself and decide for yourself what you want to take from the world around you. And then they come together and discuss the merits of a hundred different worldviews...and you can learn a lot from that kind of exchange.

Theism, on the other hand, tells you what the world means to you. And if you don't like it, tough. Better stay quiet or you're going to hell.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

There is no one who can claim to represent all athiests unlike religious figureheads. Atheism isn't a movement with a world view. It isn't even a movement, its just individuals who don't believe in god, the same way you don't believe in the Ancient Greek gods. They just extend the disbelief to the abrahamic god

Alright then, these individuals that don't believe in God need to state their own world view if
their gonna heckle and dance and ridicule another persons world view? Better ?

reply to post by randyvs

Alright then, these individuals that don't believe in God need to state their own world view if
their gonna heckle and dance and ridicule another persons world view? Better ?

Define 'worldview'.

reply to post by charles1952

Why ever advance when you can sidle?

Contrary to what Wertdagf's question implied, adherence to one's "faith" was more likely a sentence of death to the religious than to the Atheist.

Because it's common knowledge that declaring that you're an atheist would have gotten you a free pass back then?

Sorry you had to spend so much time on that last post - you could have saved yourself some time by just saying what you meant to say in the first place

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

And furthermore, I have written a book as well which theme involves the DEVASTATING effect of "Christian dogma" on the minds and lives of people who aren't content to be "told how to live or think or feel, or what to believe" for fear of "punishment."

God's will is to give and free will was given by God. Duplicity is desiring God for reward or to avoid judgment. We should desire God for the right reason. Giving and receiving is superior to taking. I agree. Good is its own reward. God gives life, even when he takes it back again. You must be born again.

I would love to read your book. What is the link?

reply to post by EnochWasRight

The foundation of my argument did not rest on Christianity, but on the ideals of the Christian faith. In my opening statement, I divided the comments that followed by one fact: Giving is superior to taking. I then outlined a proper Christian environment based on the same ideals against the ideals of Objectivism. At the end, I summed it all up with the difference between Altruism and Objectivism in light of selfishness or selflessness.

Yes, the foundation DID rest on Christianity.....

the ideals of the Christian faith are universally understood.

It is obvious to ANY person with a moral compass that giving is superior to taking.

Your posts are (to my mind) clearly saying that "Christianity" is the ONLY proper way to live, and it just isn't so.
Parenting does not depend on "faith" - it depends on the parents' ability to relate to their child's innate temperament, abilities, sensitivities, and so forth.

I don't mean to attack you, either, Ed, but.....
your tunnel-vision of "good parenting" is apparent. Parenting is BEYOND scripture or theology. It is parenting. Whatever it takes to be a good parent....is what it takes. Church makes NO DIFFERENCE.

Altruism is my modus operandi......I don't take more than I give - and neither do my kids - and they were brought up in an "un-churched" environment.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


AI what's up? Are you atheist today or pantheist or universal pagan, hell I don't remember.
I wish you'd make up my mind tho.

Define 'worldview'

I thought I did. Your view on how everything came to be that makes up our world.

reply to post by Klassified

Dear Klassified,

I'm reluctant to answer you because I've been doing poorly in expressing myself here, but manners call for a response regardless of the risk.

You surely know, as one who eats meat, Christianity can never be at peace with the world. Nor can the world ever be at peace with it. There can be no friendship between the church and the world.The very core of Christianity is at enmity with all those outside of it, by design. You said it yourself...

I pray for my Christian brothers and sisters, because they serve as models to the world.

You're quite right in saying that Christians are not of "The Kingdom of This World," we surrendered this world to the Deceiver a long time ago. Loving the Kingdom of this world, draws our love and attention away from the world that is coming, the Kingdom of God. We have to keep our minds fixed on

whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things.

But, and I think this is essential, a person, any person, is the highest and best creation on earth. Jesus came to call the sick, and we all are sick, just as we are all called to love each other. And my "models to the world, I meant that is how Christians are seen. Whether we are good or bad, that image is how Christianity is perceived. It is a frightening burden we often fail to live up to.

I can reject beliefs that are contrary to my faith, while accepting those that enlarge, clarify, and improve it. But I cannot, I must not, reject people who have different faiths, or no faith at all. Christ died for us, I can't claim that some of us are worthless.

Yes, there is division, and it is clear in all the teachings, but that division does not occur until death has taken our last chance to make a decision, not right now. Now, Christians have an obligation to love all, bringing them to God, but also to recognize that each man has the dignity of a free moral agent and must be allowed to make his own choice.

The decision on who is on the "right" side of the division is not ours to make anyway. That has been reserved to God alone, who tempers Justice with Mercy. I can say, cautiously, that some beliefs are damned. I can even say that those who hold a certain belief are damned IF they don't abandon that belief, and IF there is no justifying circumstance known only to them and God, and IF God's mercy doesn't intervene.

Unforunately, that's rather long and complicated and I (and perhaps other Christians) can slip into the habit of saying "A person who does such and such, or does so and so, is damned." That is wrong, and hurtful, and beyond our powers to know. But it does fit on a sign. Here on ATS, I hope we're beyond claiming that our verbal shortcuts express the whole truth, but it does happen and we can only ask for forgiveness and try again.

So it is really no surprise, there are MANY in the church who see those outside of it with contempt. And often see other Christians with contempt that don't hold their personal doctrine. Christianity is what it is. If a person chooses to be a Christian, they should neither apologize for it, nor should they expect to be accepted by those they hold in contempt, or at the very least, see as lost, and in need of a savior.

For the reasons I've mentioned above, I'm unable to accept the picture you paint as a good one, as the Christian role model. If I look at someone with contempt, I'm going down the wrong road. I reserve the right to see their actions as contemptible, but not the person himself. As I've said, and believe, I'm in no position to look upon anyone with contempt.

I don't apologize for being a Christian, and I don't expect anyone to accept it based on my words or life. Nor do I expect to be accepted as a Christian. I think it is fair to expect that in the majority of cases I will be accepted as a person, but even that is not a given, I'm not to everyone's taste.

But I must repeat that I do not look upon anyone with contempt, nor can I know whether or not they are saved. I have neither the ability, wisdom, or authority to judge anyone. I can say that we are all in need of a Savior. Just our daily headlines prove that beyond any doubt.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by wildtimes


Giving is superior to taking. And yet giving cannot happen without taking. The moment you are giving, someone else is taking. And you can't have anything to give without having taken something.

It really sickens me, this little game of one-up-manship. Leave it to humans to turn everything into a war, instead of recognizing that all elements have a part to play. But I guess that's religion for ya. Gotta have a bad guy before you can begin to manipulate the masses.

reply to post by wildtimes

Yes, the foundation DID rest on Christianity.....

the ideals of the Christian faith are universally understood.

So, you DO believe that the Christian faith has influenced the vicissitudes of society then? You said you did not believe this and now you do. You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

The foundation of my argument did not rest on Christianity, but on the ideals of the Christian faith. In my opening statement, I divided the comments that followed by one fact: Giving is superior to taking. I then outlined a proper Christian environment based on the same ideals against the ideals of Objectivism. At the end, I summed it all up with the difference between Altruism and Objectivism in light of selfishness or selflessness.

Yes, the foundation DID rest on Christianity.....

the ideals of the Christian faith are universally understood.

It is obvious to ANY person with a moral compass that giving is superior to taking.

Your posts are (to my mind) clearly saying that "Christianity" is the ONLY proper way to live, and it just isn't so.
Parenting does not depend on "faith" - it depends on the parents' ability to relate to their child's innate temperament, abilities, sensitivities, and so forth.

I don't mean to attack you, either, Ed, but.....
your tunnel-vision of "good parenting" is apparent. Parenting is BEYOND scripture or theology. It is parenting. Whatever it takes to be a good parent....is what it takes. Church makes NO DIFFERENCE.

Altruism is my modus operandi......I don't take more than I give - and neither do my kids - and they were brought up in an "un-churched" environment.

I will assume you missed this comment.

I SAID: "Of course, many Atheist homes are well adjusted as well. There are many who grow up in homes where parents are not self-seeking at all, but highly giving and nurturing. It can also be said that there are many homes where Christians grow up in environments where needs are not met. "

Taking the name of Christ is taking the character. And yes, this is the only way to live your life. Christianity is not necessarily that path. Being Christ-like is that path. Taking the name of Christianity is not the same as taking on the name of Christ by character.

If we are speaking of healing the world, that can only come by the blood shed on the cross. No amount of humanism will fix our problem and sickness inside. The path to the Father is by one name only--Christ. The sickness can only be fixed by the work of the cross and there is only one way to the Father above who granted us this life. We are all in need of this remedy.

As a rule, giving is better than taking and the Christian home exemplifies this when the name (Character) is taken. Some take it in vain and some follow the path in vain if the one giving us the gift of salvation is not recognized with faith, hope and love.

Gifts cannot be taken or earned. They are received.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Giving is superior to taking. And yet giving cannot happen without taking. The moment you are giving, someone else is taking. And you can't have anything to give without having taken something.

I was running an errand today and listening to NPR's "This American Life", which talked about a non-profit organization that is trying to simply "give money" to people in need.

The segment dealt with families in Kenya - these grad school guys started up this foundation, and went to Africa to just "do it" (give people "free" money), The Kenyans were suspicious -- they thought, "No, surely, there's a catch.....what am I going to be obliged to do?" I highly recommend giving it a listen:
Episode 480: The Charity that Just Gives People Money

reply to post by charles1952

Again. Well stated Charles. Fred Astaire would have been proud.

And I mean that in a humorous way. It's not a dig.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

I SAID: "Of course, many Atheist homes are well adjusted as well. There are many who grow up in homes where parents are not self-seeking at all, but highly giving and nurturing. It can also be said that there are many homes where Christians grow up in environments where needs are not met. "

Then you should have talked about "meeting needs" rather than wrapping the thoughts into a "Christians are better" tone.

I read your entire post several times - and as I said, the "exceptions" thing does not hold water.

GOOD PARENTS are just that: GOOD PARENTS.

Your judgment of kids who did not grow up in Christian homes as being inferior and flawed does not hold water....
neither does your implication that "Christian parents" are better parents.
See: JESUS CAMP.

I appreciate your efforts, Ed, to make a difference in the world, but Christianity is NOT the only foundation for good parenting, healthy children, and an altruistic, right-minded person's upbringing.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

So, you DO believe that the Christian faith has influenced the vicissitudes of society then? You said you did not believe this and now you do. You can't have it both ways.

The "Christian" faith's teachings are nothing new. People lived for eons before it arose -- and were perfectly altruistic and balanced. I believe that "Christianity" has neither contributed to, nor detracted from, the Evolutionary Morality that human beings, AS SOCIAL ANIMALS, have developed.

In my opinion, it is based on "punishment vs reward" - and anyone who lives in "fear of damnation and hell" has been manipulated into their behavior patterns....

it doesn't work.
Feeding children the threat of "hell" does NOT make for a healthy, well-adjusted kid.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I SAID: "Of course, many Atheist homes are well adjusted as well. There are many who grow up in homes where parents are not self-seeking at all, but highly giving and nurturing. It can also be said that there are many homes where Christians grow up in environments where needs are not met. "

Then you should have talked about "meeting needs" rather than wrapping the thoughts into a "Christians are better" tone.

I read your entire post several times - and as I said, the "exceptions" thing does not hold water.

GOOD PARENTS are just that: GOOD PARENTS.

Your judgment of kids who did not grow up in Christian homes as being inferior and flawed does not hold water....
neither does your implication that "Christian parents" are better parents.
See: JESUS CAMP.

I appreciate your efforts, Ed, to make a difference in the world, but Christianity is NOT the only foundation for good parenting, healthy children, and an altruistic, right-minded person's upbringing.

My comments rested on the correct foundation. Wickedness and self-righteousness (Jesus Camp) do not reflect God's will to give and never take. As I stated clearly, some take the name in vain. There are two ways to take the name of Christ in vain.

1) Taking it apart from the character that goes with it.

2) Claiming the character without the name that goes with it.

In either case, it is vanity. You speak of the kids and say I spoke negatively against kids. Not so. Light reveals what it hits and this is true for all of us. The kids have nothing to do with the parents setting a bad example. It is a cycle for sure (Ruby Payne), but each person is accountable for their own actions. Truth is not hard to find, and our hearts have truth written on them. We choose to walk away. You light the fire you burn by or you are the light on the path for others. It's a choice. Giving or taking is that choice. Christ is the name that reflects the character we take.