Atheists have faith.

[TransmutingSoul]

The irony about the "atheists have faith too" approach by theists is that if atheists are wrong, and they are wrong because they use faith, then how does this help the theist who relies on faith? It pokes holes in your own lifeboat.

The irony may be that we are not that different, it may be that it is just opinions that have seperated us.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But theists employ a type and definition of faith that atheists DON'T use, correct? No atheist comes close to anything like "living in Faith". That is a specifically religious phrase, especially that you capitalize Faith. That means it is a proper and very specific word with a specific meaning. It doesn't apply to atheists. Agree?

Why would it be so scary to say that many things I do are based on certain levels of faith?

It is not saying one beleives in a God, but it would be saying some actions are in tune with actions that people of faith have also embraced.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm glad you picked up on your wording Tony. Are you now agreeing with my response to your wording and that it was childish and bigoted? Or have you just changed your wording to hide your True thoughts?

Can I have faith that you yourself wrote the original OP before the redactions and other rather large changes in context?

Can I now have faith you have understood the origins of ethics and morals and you understand that your previous ideas involving atheists not being moral because they don't believe in theists claims about gods and religions was incorrect?

?

Well that is for you to decide. I have faith you can make a good decision.

The way it is worded now is better. The OP was to explore our actions and how much they are based in faith and not a certain knowledge of the outcome.

It was also to reconcile that if persons do work for the good of all humanity, then that in itself is the real purpose of Faith.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sorry, but the "missing link" is a phrase that those do not understand evolution tend to use. It is an outdated concept based on the mistaken idea that only fossils are evidence for evolution. We do not need to find a missing link to understand what we are the product of evolution. Perhaps you might want to study the evidence for evolution a bit. Fossil evidence is far from being the only evidence for evolution. It is not even the strongest evidence for evolution. You might want to ask a biologist, but DNA probably is the strongest evidence today.

Fossil evidence is merely the most obvious evidence to amateurs.

Do. You know if science yet considered the Spirit behind all creation?

Sorry off to work soon, our time zones are not so good.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

None that I have ever come across.

Great. Thanks.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The OP was not to prove God, the OP was to explore the motivation behind higher morality and work ethics and our willingness to be lovers of all humanity.

These are faith base goals, so if an athiest also pursues them, have they considered that they undertake these actions based on a level of faith? Maybe it is only a faith in their own selves?

Regards Tony

Yes, I would agree that I "put faith" in my ability to make discernments concerning moral situations. However, this is completely unlike any sort of "faith" that a theist has in their chosen set of deities or anything surrounding them. This is for very obvious reasons that one should not have to delineate to anyone... but which seem to need delineated time and time and time and time again.

Some of those reasons are these:

• I am a being who possesses the capacity to make decisions and discernments based on incoming stimulus. This much I can demonstrate to you if we were to have a sit down and discuss various topics and give our respective thoughts about those topics. One cannot do this with "god" and that poses a problem for being able to trust what anyone has to say about "god" or what they have supposedly been informed that His/Her intentions are.
• The faith I have in my ability to discern moral implications has been tested and modified time and again throughout my life through a process of trial and experience, and it can even have been witnessed to be tested by others, or the results of such tests having been witnessed by others. Let's see anyone be able to claim this as simply or believably about "god," or be able to produce "god" as a witness to any discernments made by god Himself or his followers.
• God should first be proven to exist as a distinct aspect of reality BEFORE we begin discussing whether or not it makes sense to "put faith" in Him or His decrees. This only makes sense. No one is going around putting their faith (or expressing their lack thereof) in the moral discernment of vampires, after all, but if doing so for "god" makes sense, then doing so for other things that people have claimed existed over the years, but which have no presence in the reality of our shared experience, should also make perfect sense. But the fact is that is DOESN'T make sense. This is a cheap, and unendearing double-standard of the most egregious sort.
• Moral issues are things we can easily BOTH experience or recognize. This is basically the basis by which we can even begin to have conversations about such things - that we both recognize their existence as, at the very least, ideas or ideals that present themselves in our shared perception of reality. God doesn't even present in our shared perception of reality - period. There is no common ground of the sort we can easily recognize for things like moral issues. I can easily refuse to accept that your god even exists for the purposes of any discussion we have, and you are left with no recourse but to insist that you be allowed bring the idea to the table while admitting that you have absolutely no mutually-acceptable justification for doing so. This is the very reason that most modern courts of law will not entertain people's religious convictions, or ideas that "god" spoke to someone or gave them some special information. It takes only a few minutes thought to understand that if courts did allow such things, we would quickly have a horrible mess on our hands.

Those reasons really only scratch the surface of why moral issues, and the ambiguity of how/whether those things really "exist", and the kind of "faith" that people put into the perceived reality of their existence is completely different than religious "faith." These are just top-of-mind reasons I came up with very easily and handily out of the library of thoughts I have had and have listened to on various subjects. That there are those who have not had these sorts of thoughts, or heard these sorts of rebuttals to ideas like that which you presented in the OP (assumedly in your defense of theists putting their faith in various otherworldly entities and their supposed "divine" thought processes), or that there are people still willing to try this avenue of disingenuous comparisons of real-world, shared experience versus their preferred brand of fantasies just blows my mind. Just take a few minutes away from your presumptions and assumptions of the religious sort and think about something without all that clutter getting in the way. If you are unable to do this, then I don't know what to tell you. Probably just stop speaking about it is the best advice I can think to give. Honestly.

 

[Clara Tea]

This OP was inspired by a response in another post.

What is it to have Faith?

I see that many that do not have a belief in God or a Religion, still have Faith. I see that many actions are based on morals that transcend this mortal world and are thus undertaken in Faith.

It could be seen that it is naught but a faith to take a stance that there is no God.

Could that be a coping mechanism, that those that choose this path will not be held accountable for their decisions, that they think they are free of the weight of this world, that they will live how they want to, die and that's it?

Does this free a person from considering that there may be deeper moral or ethical responsibilities, when all we have to use as boundaries, are the materialistic trends?

Personally I have faith and I am thankful that I will be accountable for the decisions I make and the weight of the world can be fully experienced and appreciated.

"All humanity must obtain a livelihood by sweat of the brow and bodily exertion, at the same time seeking to lift the burden of others, striving to be the source of comfort to souls and facilitating the means of living. This in itself is devotion to God. Bahá’u’lláh has thereby encouraged action and stimulated service."

‘Abdu’l-Bahá: Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 182

" Every person must have an occupation, a trade or a craft, so that he may carry other people's burdens, and not himself be a burden to others."

‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 3

Faith is a service to all we cross paths with, without faith, one can deprive themselves from such service. With Faith our heart longs to be of this service.

So I see an Atheist can have Faith when they too transcend their own desires and serve others in preference of self.

So that is the debate, but is it really a debate?

Do you give of yourself to others?

As this action is a fundamental Faith based moral decision, do you have faith that action leads to better outcomes?

Regards Tony

P/S Edited as the purpose is to explore our actions against faith, it is not to bash an atheist. Sorry it was not well worded.

Theists don't feel accountable for their actions because they feel that God will forgive them. Perhaps this is why there are so many theist sinners (1. Reverend Jim Bakker and Tammy Fay Bakker stealing from the starving Africans to live in a mansion, which they put in their lawyer's name, 2. Mafia....3. taggers, etc).

Atheists, on the other hand, don't sin nearly as much. (You seem to have accidentally omitted that detail, so I thought I'd remind you).

If you have faith in God, why bother with social isolation and masks to keep COVID from spreading. Why did God make COVID? Is COVID God's punishment for attacking Iraq (as it says in Revelation 15)? Shouldn't faith protect you if you stand in the middle of a freeway or leap off of a high building?

If burdens build character, should we try to burden others?

Transmuting soul asked: "Do you give of yourself to others?" Yes, I spend the time to refute theist lies about atheists. (thou shalt not bear false witness) Such lies instill hatred of atheists. Furthermore, you give theists far too much credit for making good decisions (sinless) and many examples disprove your assertions.

 

[Trailblazer]

On what do you base this speculation? Is that something that God has told you personally?

No, it is something that God told Baha'u'llah.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I wonder if we sell ourselves short of our capacities when we see gods involved in nature.

A beautiful sunset is the product of thousands of things coming together just right. There is wind and dust and clouds and the position of the sun and even tides.

Are you offering that when thousands of things come together just right, that no planning was required, there is no intelligence required?

How clever is man then, if he has to plan for thousands of things coming together just right, for it to be successful?

Regards Tony

 

[Clara Tea]

Yes, I would agree that I "put faith" in my ability to make discernments concerning moral situations. However, this is completely unlike any sort of "faith" that a theist has in their chosen set of deities or anything surrounding them. This is for very obvious reasons that one should not have to delineate to anyone... but which seem to need delineated time and time and time and time again.

Some of those reasons are these:

• I am a being who possesses the capacity to make decisions and discernments based on incoming stimulus. This much I can demonstrate to you if we were to have a sit down and discuss various topics and give our respective thoughts about those topics. One cannot do this with "god" and that poses a problem for being able to trust what anyone has to say about "god" or what they have supposedly been informed that His/Her intentions are.
• The faith I have in my ability to discern moral implications has been tested and modified time and again throughout my life through a process of trial and experience, and it can even have been witnessed to be tested by others, or the results of such tests having been witnessed by others. Let's see anyone be able to claim this as simply or believably about "god," or be able to produce "god" as a witness to any discernments made by god Himself or his followers.
• God should first be proven to exist as a distinct aspect of reality BEFORE we begin discussing whether or not it makes sense to "put faith" in Him or His decrees. This only makes sense. No one is going around putting their faith (or expressing their lack thereof) in the moral discernment of vampires, after all, but if doing so for "god" makes sense, then doing so for other things that people have claimed existed over the years, but which have no presence in the reality of our shared experience, should also make perfect sense. But the fact is that is DOESN'T make sense. This is a cheap, and unendearing double-standard of the most egregious sort.
• Moral issues are things we can easily BOTH experience or recognize. This is basically the basis by which we can even begin to have conversations about such things - that we both recognize there existence as, at the very least, ideas or ideals that present themselves in our shared perception of reality. God doesn't even present in our shared perception of reality - period. There is no common ground of the sort we can easily recognize for things like moral issues. I can easily refuse to accept that your god even exists for the purposes of any discussion we have, and you are left with no recourse but to insist that you be allowed bring the idea to the table while admitting that you have absolutely no mutually-acceptable justification for doing so. This is the very reason that most modern courts of law will not entertain people's religious convictions, or ideas that "god" spoke to someone or gave them some special information. It takes only a few minutes thought to understand that if courts did allow such things, we would quickly have a horrible mess on our hands.

Those reasons really only scratch the surface of why moral issues, and the ambiguity of how/whether those things really "exist", and the kind of "faith" that people put into the perceived reality of their existence is completely different than religious "faith." These are just top-of-mind reasons I came up with very easily and handily out of the library of thoughts I have had and have listened to on various subjects. That there are those who have not had these sorts of thoughts, or heard these sorts of rebuttals to ideas like that which you presented in the OP (assumedly in your defense of theists putting their faith in various otherworldly entities and their supposed thought processes), or that there are people still willing to try this avenue of disingenuous compariso

It isn't an issue of recognizing moral choices. It is an issue of doing moral things (especially if you know what is and what is not moral).

For example, certainly Reverend Jim Bakker and Tammy Fay Bakker knew that it was wrong to steal donations from starving Africans. Their show clearly pointed out that they were staving, and imitation tears streamed down Tammy's face. But, even though they knew that they were sinning (doing wrong), they persisted. This is far worse than accidentally hurting someone. It is the deadly sin of greed, and it is lying to the people who generously donating, and cheating them of the benefits of donating to others.

The TV miniseries "Roots" highlighted this issue, when the new master was too busy to listen to the complaints of Kunta Kinte as he was being tortured to accept the name "Toby" instead. The master was too busy reading the bible to have a discussion about the morality of torture and slavery (such a pious man). Surely the master knew that he was sinning, but he persisted in sinning more.

It isn't enough to recognize sin, one must avoid it.

Theists believe that God will forgive them if they sin (or take the wrong moral path). But atheists have no one to forgive them, they are just naturally moral and decent (in general).

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Theists don't feel accountable for their actions because they feel that God will forgive them. Perhaps this is why there are so many theist sinners (1. Reverend Jim Bakker and Tammy Fay Bakker stealing from the starving Africans to live in a mansion, which they put in their lawyer's name, 2. Mafia....3. taggers, etc).

Atheists, on the other hand, don't sin nearly as much. (You seem to have accidentally omitted that detail, so I thought I'd remind you).

If you have faith in God, why bother with social isolation and masks to keep COVID from spreading. Why did God make COVID? Is COVID God's punishment for attacking Iraq (as it says in Revelation 15)? Shouldn't faith protect you if you stand in the middle of a freeway or leap off of a high building?

If burdens build character, should we try to burden others?

Transmuting soul asked: "Do you give of yourself to others?" Yes, I spend the time to refute theist lies about atheists. (thou shalt not bear false witness) Such lies instill hatred of atheists. Furthermore, you give theists far too much credit for making good decisions (sinless) and many examples disprove your assertions.

I do not see you have understood many people of faith.

I also still see the purpose of the OP was to consider where our moral and rightful actions originate from.

It not about bashing up any group of people or person.

Regards Tony

 

[Clara Tea]

I also have faith that pink unicorns, tooth fairies, father Christmas, leprechauns etc don't exist

I don't know of any atheist who tries "to convince others" that gods don't exist, rather i see it often the other way round, the faithful attempting to convince atheist to believe in something they know is not real. Often at the point of a loaded bible

Arghhhhh. Santa doesn't exist???? But what about the lump of coal that Santa gave President W. Bush for polluting for greed? W. Bush said "woohoo....fossil fuel."

In today's confusing world of boy raping priests, boy raping Boy Scout of America troop leaders, and pedophiles on every corner, one must be ever-weary of a fat old man in a red suit enticing little boys into his lap with the promise of something to play with. He sneaks down chimneys in the middle of the night, invading people's homes as they sleep.

Presumably, Christmas is about celebrating Christ absolving our sins. Yet, look at the harm that Christianity has done...wars, torture, etc. Father Junipero Serra enslaved Native Americas to build missions, killing and torturing many of them.

The reality of Christianity is very far from the fantasy (song above).

 

[ecco]

I do see that in the end, that we will have to admit we need a captain to steer the ship.

What is truer is that in the end, you think you need a captain to steer your ship.

Atheists, at least this one, prefer to steer our own ships.

 

[ecco]

I also still see the purpose of the OP was to consider where our moral and rightful actions originate from.

I answered "evolution". You did not disagree.

 

[Clara Tea]

I do not see you have understood many people of faith.

I also still see the purpose of the OP was to consider where our moral and rightful actions originate from.

It not about bashing up any group of people or person.

Regards Tony

Many well meaning Christians have elected leaders (voting in great numbers). But the religious right backed gun rights groups, like the NRA, which have an enemy's list consisting of democrats and the pope. Hatred, violence, and lies about their opponents keep them going.

Christians are against God's environment, and often side with greedy oil companies that frack and drill off the coast, and they side with loggers who destroy God's forests, and they side with nuclear power plants that leave toxic waste for tens of thousands of years. They claim that they will rapture to heaven, leaving behind toxic waste dumps.

Christians are against science, and often fight science. They want to stop science from being taught in schools, preferring the teaching of creationism, and they fight against funding medical research, claiming that their kids should die natural deaths. They fight against virus research, yet that is the best hope to defeat COVID.

Poorly educated Christians fight against scientists who warn of Global Warming, not realizing that those scientists are highly educated and performed rigorous scientific tests to confirm their theories.

Our moral and rightful actions are sound without religion. In fact, religion offers forgiveness, and forgiveness causes people to act immorally. Various people feel that they can go to war, then God will forgive them (thou shalt not kill.....turn the other cheek).

 

[Watchmen]

That is what the OP is exploring, where does the motivation actually stem from, our animal self or a higher self, is it not faith to see that morality makes a better world? Sure we can play with words like faith, but to me faith encompasses all virtue and morality as these are what build civilizations.

Regards Tony

The motivation stems from things completely unrelated to god and religion, animalistic or otherwise.

 

[Clara Tea]

What is truer is that in the end, you think you need a captain to steer your ship.

Atheists, at least this one, prefer to steer our own ships.

"I am the captain of my soul. I rule it with stern joy. Yet, I think I had more fun as a cabin boy." (Invictus by William Ernest Henley )

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Do some atheists believe in astrology?

I don't know. Maybe. Just not in deities.

 

[Trailblazer]

How clever is man then, if he has to plan for thousands of things coming together just right, for it to be successful?

Not as clever as God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It isn't an issue of recognizing moral choices. It is an issue of doing moral things (especially if you know what is and what is not moral).

Regardless, the first thing anyone must necessarily do is recognize what are moral issues and then discern which "side" one's opinions might see them falling on. The reality is that "doing moral things" is NOT an objective item. What one person may consider entirely morally neutral (or even morally correct) may be another persons "morally incorrect." This is SO EASILY seen with things like Halloween (a pertinent example because it is coming up). My wife's parents wouldn't let her dress up or trick-or-treat because they deemed Halloween's roots to be from an evil source. So what is "doing moral things" with respect to Halloween? Can you tell me? Can you tell me in a way that isn't just you informing me of your particular opinions?

For example, certainly Reverend Jim Bakker and Tammy Fay Bakker knew that it was wrong to steal donations from starving Africans.

They knew other people would perceive it as wrong. This I am certain they knew because they were quick to try and hide their activities. Whether or not they actually had moral scruples about stealing donations from starving Africans is a completely separate matter. I would argue that they DIDN'T have such moral scruples. They didn't care - otherwise they wouldn't have done it based on their own principles, or the "rewards" they experienced for themselves was used as a justification (along with other reasoning, probably) to over-ride their moral discernment.

It could be much like how I let my kids participate in Halloween REGARDLESS what my in-laws think about it. I don't have hang-ups about Halloween... THEY do... and I don't care one bit. Not even a shred. By your logic, I should still somehow "know" that Halloween is "wrong," based on the fact that other people discern it to be so. I don't have to care about what others think... and my moral judgments do not have to conform to the rest of society. That's not how it works, at all. Jim and Tammy Faye didn't have to believe it to be wrong to steal donations from Africans. And they either didn't, or they have justified it to themselves somehow. Whether they were racists, or figured those people would figure it out for themselves, or (since they were religious) reasoned that if it was "God's will" that those people live even without the donations, then they would, and it wouldn't be their own fault if those people died. To the point that they either had no moral hang-ups about their actions, or they justified it due to the perceived "good" they were experiencing due to their profiting from the stealing - and such justification is the mind's way of making the situation "right" from the eye of the actor.

Their show clearly pointed out that they were staving, and imitation tears streamed down Tammy's face.

Because they knew how this appearance would affect OTHERS. They themselves though? Do you think those tears streaming down Tammy Faye's face were real? Truly?

But, even though they knew that they were sinning (doing wrong), they persisted.

Again - they knew others would judge it as wrong - and this is what they were ultimately worried about. NOT their own thoughts on the subject. If asked, they would have easily agreed that it was wrong of others to do what they were doing - but this likely would have only been to keep up appearances. Otherwise, they were definitely in the business of justifying their actions to themselves and must have fairly easily ignored their own thoughts on the matter (assuming they even cared as much as you say they did), given how long they kept it up.

The TV miniseries "Roots" highlighted this issue, when the new master was too busy to listen to the complaints of Kunta Kinte as he was being tortured to accept the name "Toby" instead. The master was too busy reading the bible to have a discussion about the morality of torture and slavery (such a pious man). Surely the master knew that he was sinning, but he persisted in sinning more.

Again, I would say that the "master" in that instance was, instead, justifying his actions to himself. Whether that was to consider that "Kunta Kinte" was being disobedient and that this was "wrong" (like some like to claim others are being against "The Lord"), or he felt that black people were beneath people like himself or were unworthy of better. He was using some method of justification for his actions such that it over-rode any sort of moral issue he might otherwise have with the action. To see this, simply substitute a white, female child for "Kunta Kinte" and see if he would still be beating/torturing the individual. In that instance, his moral discernment may not have room for justification of the sort he allows himself for the black slave. He reasoned himself out of it being a "sin" in other words.

It isn't enough to recognize sin, one must avoid it.

And? How does this idea refute anything I said about the difference between the "reality" of moral issues versus the "reality" of God? Please enlighten me. Right now the fact that you made a comment like this in reply to me just seems like you're standing on your own soap box out in left field without a ball to pitch back into the game.