Uh, no. You are quite mistaken, perhaps because you do not understand the role of God in religion and spirituality.
Nor does @atanu , as exceedingly shown in this thread.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Crossbreed atheism with spirituality
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
Nor does @atanu , as exceedingly shown in this thread.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
No, I'm not mistaken. The Holy Spirit of God would reveal Jesus Christ to an individual. That didn't happen. And according to the Bible, apart from the carnal, human spirit, there's only one other spiritual force in the universe - the devil or Satanic spirituality.
Well, I guess that means that your doctrine is mistaken then.
ecco
Veteran Member
Another atanuism that has no basis in reality. However, I may be wrong. If so, it should be easy for you to find something to back up that silly assertion.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
You couldn't prove it by that answer.
Some cannot see sarcasm.
Are there two different spirits underlying the world? I want to understand.
The thread is not about my opinion. Please check the OP.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
There's the 'good' Spirit of God, man's human spirit, and the spirit of the occult - Satanic. Stay away from that last one if you can.
In Vedantic understanding, there is one good spirit only. The aberrations are mental-intellectual based on notion of duality. That is why I said that atheists too are from the Father.
I am keen to understand whether the God, human and occult spirits are three independent spirits with three different sources?
Spartan
Well-Known Member
The source of two of those spirits is God. He created men (the human spirit) and angels. Then a portion of the angels rebelled against God and became demonic spirits. The third type of Spirit is God.
But not all are of God. Jesus said (John chapter 8), "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
I'll be reading the article in a bit, but in the interim, I just want to comment that the theological and religious landscape in the West is not only complicated, but in flux. Add to that a near total lack of public education on theology or religion and we have a recipe for terminological disaster when it comes to mapping the territory. Thank goodness the article tackles some of that problem head on in the first few paragraphs.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
I still don't find any reference to God or gods here. He seemed to be addressing the thought process of those times.
I am not a Christian, but if the said Christian Germans followed the Christian philosophy as you stated, they would have desisted from war and nonviolence as Christ condemned them.
The fact is that due to Nietzche's nihilist teachings, most Germans had abandoned christianity and were onto racial nationalism. They, like the KKK, use the christian identity as some sort of cultural identity, but there the whole thing ended.
Christ's teachings of nonviolence or turning the other cheek and other pacafist values were all thrown to the dustbin.
Atheism-materialism can be divorced from values due to nihilist-existential conditioning as mentioned earlier.
Let the atheists determine some sort of code of conduct or value system for themselves, immune from nihilist-existentialist conditioning. But I am not sure of its stability, because western philosophy has not gone beyond nihilism and existentialism at this point of time, due to its recent origin, and is still in a learning curve.
Hence at this point of time, western civilization is in a precarious position. It's trajectory at this point of time, unless it learns fast, is pointed towards anarchy and chaos.
The article was an interesting read. I don't have the background to fully appreciate all of the contexts discussed, but a few things that stood out to me?
The article highlights the problems intrinsic to defining oneself in the negative rather than in the positive. Such problems have been remarked upon by many, so while this idea is not new, it is an important one. Defining something in the negative tells you what something is not, but it does not tell you what something is. Consequently, defining something in the negative is like digging a hole and leaving it empty. Telling the story of that emptiness in the context of atheist identity in Soviet Russia is an interesting case example. It needed to be filled with something eventually, and for some, that something fell under the header "spirituality" in spite of the seeming contradiction.
The most interesting section to folks on this board is probably going to be the third one. It provides a good summary of the shifting winds of (ir)religion and (a)theism in the West, as well as a sensible breakdown of how "spirituality" (as understood by the writers of the article) intersects with "atheism" (again, as understood by the writers of the article). To me, all this is a reflection of how constrained our vocabulary often is when discussing these things and that atheism and theism in of themselves aren't really all that distinct from one another once we peel back those superficial labels and look at what is underneath. I notice this a lot in the Pagan community, which struggles at times with whether or not someone is theistic or non-theistic, and even whether it is a religion at all. If we spent less time focusing on the labels and more on the substance beneath them, we might be surprised at how much we're all searching for our own truths and meanings in life.
Other than that, I kind of want to just copy-paste this into every single thread that goes on and on about defining atheism because it's so much more articulate than I usually am on the matter:
The article highlights the problems intrinsic to defining oneself in the negative rather than in the positive. Such problems have been remarked upon by many, so while this idea is not new, it is an important one. Defining something in the negative tells you what something is not, but it does not tell you what something is. Consequently, defining something in the negative is like digging a hole and leaving it empty. Telling the story of that emptiness in the context of atheist identity in Soviet Russia is an interesting case example. It needed to be filled with something eventually, and for some, that something fell under the header "spirituality" in spite of the seeming contradiction.
The most interesting section to folks on this board is probably going to be the third one. It provides a good summary of the shifting winds of (ir)religion and (a)theism in the West, as well as a sensible breakdown of how "spirituality" (as understood by the writers of the article) intersects with "atheism" (again, as understood by the writers of the article). To me, all this is a reflection of how constrained our vocabulary often is when discussing these things and that atheism and theism in of themselves aren't really all that distinct from one another once we peel back those superficial labels and look at what is underneath. I notice this a lot in the Pagan community, which struggles at times with whether or not someone is theistic or non-theistic, and even whether it is a religion at all. If we spent less time focusing on the labels and more on the substance beneath them, we might be surprised at how much we're all searching for our own truths and meanings in life.
Other than that, I kind of want to just copy-paste this into every single thread that goes on and on about defining atheism because it's so much more articulate than I usually am on the matter:
"In its minimal philosophical definition – the absence of believing in god(s) – atheism is a result of the underlying premises that depend on a particular time and place, such as the lack of the concept of God in a particular culture or the lack of religious socialization, or naturalism, or the science-religion opposition. Concurrently, atheism as a conviction can lead to further elements that define atheism in a particular cultural context, such as naturalism, science-religion opposition, rationalism or anti-religious activity. Thus, we can postulate that atheism is a “meeting point” of different ideas, practices, and attitudes that somehow revolve around the absence of belief in god(s)."
ecco
Veteran Member
Are you actually going to try to tell us that you do not believe that many atheists are atheists because their parents were atheists?
ecco
Veteran Member
Still unanswered...
You say you are not a Christian, and therefore I believe you.
I also believe Christians who say they are Christians. The Christians in 1930-1940 Germany who jailed and murdered millions of Jews were Christians. The Christians who hunted and burned thousands of witches at the stake were Christians. The Christians who tortured mostly Jews during the inquisitions were Christians. The American Christians who bought, owned, and beat slaves were Christians. If they didn't act like you believe Christians would act, well, you are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to define who they were.
You say you are not a Christian, and therefore I believe you.
I also believe Christians who say they are Christians. The Christians in 1930-1940 Germany who jailed and murdered millions of Jews were Christians. The Christians who hunted and burned thousands of witches at the stake were Christians. The Christians who tortured mostly Jews during the inquisitions were Christians. The American Christians who bought, owned, and beat slaves were Christians. If they didn't act like you believe Christians would act, well, you are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to define who they were.
In many Western Countries, people of many religions and no religions have and are changing from religious-based values toward laws that reflect a respect for humanity.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
They can be divorced from human values if they come under the influence of nihilist philosophies, which is still a hugely popular philosophy in the west.
I have already explained all this.
Atheist-materialism wedded to a proper code of virtuous conduct, as in secular humanism, is not at all evil. This code of conduct does not have to be of religious orientation.
There were christians who adhered to a code of virtuous conduct like Martin Luther King,the Greek christian priests who refused to hand over Jews to the Nazis and so on.
My focus over here is on adherence to a value based code of conduct, religious or secular humanistic, which is immune to any influence of nihilistic philosophies.
But nihilism and existentialism believes that such laws are based on values that are relative without any inherent significance or substance of their own.
Anarchism especially is anti-authoritarian and holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.
Western philosophy guides the thought process of atheist-materialists in the west, and I am not sure this can lead to good alone.
You have doubt? Irrespective of what the parents claim, their actual actions influence children. There is evidence that the children of parents who pay lip service to religion without matching actions, are more likely to turn up atheists.
This was a sarcastic observation meant for another believer.
...
Last edited:
Not all philosophy, imo.