Isn't it better to be atheists?

[loverofhumanity]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

I think people have turned away from what I term ‘irreligion masquerading as religion’ not true religion which teaches to be loving and treat others with kindness and to be virtuous and of upright noble character.

As to turning away from ‘religion masquerading as religion’, that is a very good thing. By turning away from things we see such as terrorism and child sexual abuse we are showing ourselves to be noble and truly religious.

But if you distinguish and discern between what the Educatirs, Buddhas or Prophets actually taught you will find their teachings represent the highest moral and ethical codes man has ever known. Later after their death, their followers subverted the original teachings and replaced them with imperfect man made imitations in their lust fir power and wealth and which are often meaningless and useless.

But I don’t believe atheism teaches to turn away from what Jesus or Buddha taught? Surely not! Jesus taught love and forgiveness while Buddha taught moderation and to be good and unselfish.

 

[shunyadragon]

If the founding fathers were not Christians as you say, Then why would a none Christian, agree that the Holy Bible which is a Christian holy book, be approved for use in all schools, if they were not Christians themselves as you say they were not Christians.

You know that's like, seeing that Atheists are not Christians, But yet Atheists approved the Holy Bible for use in all schools
So you go ask any Atheist if they would ok the Christian Holy Bible for use in all schools and see what exactly they will tell you.
But yet you expect people to believe that the founding fathers were not Christians themselves, But yet approved the Christians Holy Bible for use in all schools.
You can't be Serious.

Few of the founding Fathers of our country were atheists. It was actually illegal to be an atheist in some states They were mostly Deist Humanists, and some not all considered the Bible good for teaching morals and ethics. Jefferson edited his own Bible to reflect a Deist Humanist perspective. The Bible was a part of the culture, and at the time could nto excluded from schools by mandate..

 

[Muffled]

I believe receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior is the best choice a person can make. I believe not believing in God could turn out to be the worst mistake a person makes in his life.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior is the best choice a person can make. I believe not believing in God could turn out to be the worst mistake a person makes in his life.

Or the best conclusion they ever make. It all depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?

 

[England my lionheart]

I think that the concept of religion has evolved a lot between the 20th and the 21st century, also thanks to Ecumenism and to Interfaith Discussion (and to RF..lol)
But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe? I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".
I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism. The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world. And I think that being atheists help you understand your path,

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek. Also...I think that changing religion every five seconds vilifies people's spirituality.

I think it began with the "enlightenment", Europe suffered religious persecution from both Catholic and protestantism so it been a gradual thing but Ww1 and 2 had a hastening effect,then better education and information technology making it easy to question and find answers.

I wouldn't say it's better being atheist, it's just a position one takes when presented with fantastic claims without any proof, lt isn't something one practices or thinks about all the time, a response more than anything.

 

[Milton Platt]

At the same time many others realised that spiritual practices were very useful in their lives, making them happier more balanced people with a satisfying purpose in life.

So, while it was liberating to get rid of the suffocating religious dogma and the exploitation by corrupt priests, more and more people discovered that spirituality trumped by far the hollow benefits of chasing after mere pleasure and comfort. So no, atheism was not the answer, you cannot draw any good from merely denying something bad.

Can you define what "spirituality" is, absent of religion?

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior is the best choice a person can make. I believe not believing in God could turn out to be the worst mistake a person makes in his life.

Pascal's wager is absolutely the worst possible reason to become a Christian.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think it began with the "enlightenment", Europe suffered religious persecution from both Catholic and protestantism so it been a gradual thing but Ww1 and 2 had a hastening effect,then better education and information technology making it easy to question and find answers.

I wouldn't say it's better being atheist, it's just a position one takes when presented with fantastic claims without any proof, lt isn't something one practices or thinks about all the time, a response more than anything.

First, there would no 'proof' for any belief choice one way or another. As a Philosophical agnostic questioning all belief choices, and I consider the choice of atheism a logical reasonable consistent choice evolve more in the 19th and 20th centuries, but does require a philosophical naturalist leap that no God(s) exist.

Agnosticism is the preferable position over atheism, because it avoids making the extreme assumption that no Gods exist..

I am a Baha'i, and believe an apophatic God. The Baha'i Faith does not claim any of the Biblical anthropomorphic miracle working God with the extraordinary claims of absolute truth.

God is not a chess player
With the white pieces
God is the sea
. . . and we are the pieces.

I agree with your description to a certain extent of the evolution of the more humanist rational of both atheist and agnostic positions. But I feel the emphasis better education and information technology apparently cuts both ways. The increased literacy, Christians learning to use education and information technology, and the wide spread printing of the Bible has lead to an increased sophistication of leading the flock, and using the desire for a sense of belonging and tradition to keep 'most' the flock in line.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I believe receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior is the best choice a person can make. I believe not believing in God could turn out to be the worst mistake a person makes in his life.

How is it worse from neutral perspective?

Is it best because it works for you and you like others to share the same benefits?

If not, what is best about it in and of itself independent of the persons preference and decision of what they know is best for them and not others?

 

[shunyadragon]

How is it worse from neutral perspective?

Is it best because it works for you and you like others to share the same benefits?

If not, what is best about it in and of itself independent of the persons preference and decision of what they know is best for them and not others?

I believe this is as unrealistic as the response gave by @Muffled, Classic Pascal's Wager. I do not believe any individual world view would advocate this 'free for all' everybody makes there own choice. This would erroneously assume fallible humans actually have that degree of free will for everybody can make their own choice free from the natural desire for sense of belonging, and all the influence of their heritage and traditions,

This is very very unlikely.

 

[Marcion]

Can you define what "spirituality" is, absent of religion?

Learning to improve your spirit from within your mind, so without the need for gratifying the senses or seeking special comforts.

 

[England my lionheart]

First, there would no 'proof' for any belief choice one way or another. As Philosophical agnostic questioning all belief choices I consider the choice of atheism a logical reasonable consistent choice evolve more in the late 18th and 20th centuries, but does require a philosophical naturalist leap that no God(s) exist.

Agnosticism is the preferable position over atheism, because it avoids making the extreme assumption that no Gods exist..

Is agnostic a "sit on the fence" just in case position?.

I am a Baha'i, and believe an apophatic God. The Baha'i Faith does not claim any of the Biblical anthropomorphic miracle working God with the extraordinary claims of absolute truth.

God is not a chess player
With the white pieces
God is the sea
. . . and we are the pieces.

I don't quite get the baha'i faith, seems to me its another version of someone idea of what their God is.


I agree with your description to a certain extent of the evolution of the more humanist rational of both atheist and agnostic positions. But I feel the emphasis better education and information technology apparently cuts both ways. The increased literacy, Christians learning to use education and information technology, and the wide spread printing of the Bible has lead to an increased sophistication of leading the flock, and using the desire for a sense of belonging and tradition to keep 'most' the flock in line.

It does cut both ways but once it only cut one way,not that long ago in history your religion was what you were born into,still is for many but it's an improvement Imo.

 

[Milton Platt]

Learning to improve your spirit from within your mind, so without the need for gratifying the senses or seeking special comforts.

so, just self improvement is what you are talking about, then? You still are using the word "spirit" to define the word "spiritual", which does not help. What does "spirit" mean in your context?
The reason I am pressing on this is because spiritual is a word that has been given so many uses it has become meaningless. Whatever definition you give it is just fine. I'm only trying to understand what it means to you within this thread. I have no alternate definition to defend. I don't even know what it means.

 

[Milton Platt]

I think people have turned away from what I term ‘irreligion masquerading as religion’ not true religion which teaches to be loving and treat others with kindness and to be virtuous and of upright noble character.

As to turning away from ‘religion masquerading as religion’, that is a very good thing. By turning away from things we see such as terrorism and child sexual abuse we are showing ourselves to be noble and truly religious.

But if you distinguish and discern between what the Educatirs, Buddhas or Prophets actually taught you will find their teachings represent the highest moral and ethical codes man has ever known. Later after their death, their followers subverted the original teachings and replaced them with imperfect man made imitations in their lust fir power and wealth and which are often meaningless and useless.

But I don’t believe atheism teaches to turn away from what Jesus or Buddha taught? Surely not! Jesus taught love and forgiveness while Buddha taught moderation and to be good and unselfish.

So where does one get the "original" teachings of these people? How can it be verified that they are "original"?

 

[shunyadragon]

It does cut both ways but once it only cut one way,not that long ago in history your religion was what you were born into,still is for many but it's an improvement Imo.

Need to format your post better so I can respond. The Baha'i Faith's belief in apophatic God is basically a rejection of ancient religions that try to define what 'God is' from an anthropomorphic mythological perspective. As an apophatic belief, the Baha'i teaches what God is not.

 

[England my lionheart]

Need to format your post better so I can respond. The Baha'i Faith's belief in apophatic God is basically a rejection of ancient religions that try to define what 'God is' from an anthropomorphic mythological perspective. As an apophatic belief, the Baha'i teaches what God is not.

Sorry I'm posting from my phone, its the phones fault of course.