Isn't it better to be atheists?

[shmogie]

Admittedly, Advaita does attempt to approach spiritual issues from logical points of arguing and illustration, but ultimately these are conveniences and realized to be ultimately false. Even they are merely to create the "space" in the mind to receive knowledge of the truth. It's just to get someone to realize their own divine nature and consciousness, we have to meet them where they are now.

The problem with non-Hindu or Buddhism spirituality is that they've lost their sage traditions long ago and don't realize the scriptures are simply mirrors. No amount of following them leads to knowledge of reality and they were just to get someone to think along these lines. The seers/sages still reside in those two systems, almost to the near exclusion of any other systems. Without these, you have no way to translate those "mirrors" into something that can reflect the light of truth in a way plain to see. That explains why people are revolting against popular religious teachings - deep down they know something is up.

Advaita allows you to embrace science and religion as a peaceful whole, realizing that one is an empirical study of the material world and laws, and the other is a map to the sea of consciousness, mind, or God if you'd prefer.

No, not true. First, this revolt as you call it, was predicted long ago, by Christian ¨sages¨. It is neither unexpected, nor surprising. It is the result of materialism and ever increasing emphasis on man instead of God, and what man wants and desires instead of what God wants and desires for man. As to science, the modern version began in Christian Europe and later in America. The greatest, and most, of these scientists were Christians. There is no conflict between Christianity and science. The conflict is between humanists and Christians in the interpretation of the evidence used to make science. Humanists do not have the added insight given by the Jewish and Christian ¨sages¨. As an example, millenia ago these folk said all that there is was created, instantly. However, humanist science said no, the universe had existed forever . The big bang theory, seriously proposed around 1910, and now accepted by the overwhelming majority of cosmologists is touted as being new.

 

[sealchan]

No, not true. First, this revolt as you call it, was predicted long ago, by Christian ¨sages¨. It is neither unexpected, nor surprising. It is the result of materialism and ever increasing emphasis on man instead of God, and what man wants and desires instead of what God wants and desires for man. As to science, the modern version began in Christian Europe and later in America. The greatest, and most, of these scientists were Christians. There is no conflict between Christianity and science. The conflict is between humanists and Christians in the interpretation of the evidence used to make science. Humanists do not have the added insight given by the Jewish and Christian ¨sages¨. As an example, millenia ago these folk said all that there is was created, instantly. However, humanist science said no, the universe had existed forever . The big bang theory, seriously proposed around 1910, and now accepted by the overwhelming majority of cosmologists is touted as being new.

Saying that the Christian sages already predicted the Big Bang is like a gambler saying he is going to win big...only it will take over 2000 years of rolling the dice.

The Biblical creation story was simply an alteration of existing creation myth suited to the spiritual message the authors of the Jewish Testament sought to describe. I think that most creation myths start with some primal state of the Universe and then some divine being does something to get it all started.

The virtue of the Genesis creation narrative is that it is extremely down-to-earth compared with the creation myths of most traditions. This makes it appear to be in line with modern developments. However, its cosmology was extremely limited and so only its practical sparseness will give anyone the illusion that the author's had inside information from a modern perspective.

So called humanist science has provided so many insights into the nature of God's creation that we, who use its technology to have this discussion, should be very loathe to question its validity without, at best, appearing to be naive or willfully confused. There is little authority of literal truth in the Genesis creation narrative...rather there is a quality of spiritual truth best seen, perhaps, in comparison to the other creation myths from which the authors were inspired and there is, I think, the truth found in the larger narrative of which that creation story is but a literary (not literal) part.

And besides, I fully expect that within the next 100 years, there will be scientific ground for an understanding of a background against which the Universe we know and live in exists. It may be Turtle-Gods all the way down...

 

[shmogie]

Saying that the Christian sages already predicted the Big Bang is like a gambler saying he is going to win big...only it will take over 2000 years of rolling the dice.

The Biblical creation story was simply an alteration of existing creation myth suited to the spiritual message the authors of the Jewish Testament sought to describe. I think that most creation myths start with some primal state of the Universe and then some divine being does something to get it all started.

The virtue of the Genesis creation narrative is that it is extremely down-to-earth compared with the creation myths of most traditions. This makes it appear to be in line with modern developments. However, its cosmology was extremely limited and so only its practical sparseness will give anyone the illusion that the author's had inside information from a modern perspective.

So called humanist science has provided so many insights into the nature of God's creation that we, who use its technology to have this discussion, should be very loathe to question its validity without, at best, appearing to be naive or willfully confused. There is little authority of literal truth in the Genesis creation narrative...rather there is a quality of spiritual truth best seen, perhaps, in comparison to the other creation myths from which the authors were inspired and there is, I think, the truth found in the larger narrative of which that creation story is but a literary (not literal) part.

And besides, I fully expect that within the next 100 years, there will be scientific ground for an understanding of a
too muchbackground against which the Universe we know and live in exists. It may be Turtle-Gods all the way down...

You seem to be reading much into what I didn´t say. I simply stated that when the world and all itś scientists believed in a steady state universe, Christians and Jews believed in a created universe, coming into existence in an instant, and had for thousands of years. . Simple fact, regardless of your attempts to explain it away. Methinks you protesteth way too much.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Alright, now that I have plenty of time- let me take a crack at this OP. (cracks hands)

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

Why do you think that means religion has evolved? What do you even mean by religion when you use it generally in that way? Religions do not all believe the same things.

But one wonders: why is atheism on the rise, especially in Europe?

Atheism is not on the rise in Europe that anyone could prove beyond a doubt. 'Non-religion' is on the rise. There can be a difference.

I think it's because people have realized that religions are nothing but a "cultural product".

I don't see how culture would enter into it if the religion is receiving and conveying truth. What would culture have to do with the true content?

I am also convinced that the term religion comes from Latin res legere...that is, to cultivate a sort of ritualism.

Therefore, non-ritual religions are...?

The real religion is the personal one, the one you create by yourself by understanding the world.

Based on what standard is that the 'real' religion? How do you back up what you think you're understanding? On what authority?

So I think it's better to be atheists...rather than exploring religions randomly...because they won't give you the answers you seek.

That depends what answers you're seeking, and what you would accept as evidence. If you won't accept anything as evidence- of course you'll walk away convinced of nothing.

 

[Trailblazer]

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 do not think in terms of better or worse, I think in terms of what is. So if there is a God then it is better to be a believer but if there is no God then it is better to be an atheist because it would be silly to believe in and worship a nonexistent Being...

Since we cannot prove that God exists, it is just a matter of what people choose to believe or disbelieve. Frankly, I think it is kind of risky to discount the idea that there is a God because if there is a God then there could be repercussions for not believing in that God, especially after we die. So I think it is smart for atheists to keep looking for evidence that God exists.

If there is no God and we believed there was a God the worst that can happen is that we die and there is nothing... We might have spent or lives worshiping and serving a nonexistent God, but if we lived a good life doing it we have really lost nothing except that we sacrificed our own personal desires, other fun things we could have been doing.

I have been thinking about this lately, since I have sacrificed all my time for God and I see no end in sight. What is it was all for nothing? Then I wake up and realize that is really not possible because of course there is a God and an afterlife. I sometimes just wish there wasn't so I could go back to having fun...

 

[shmogie]

I do not think in terms of better or worse, I think in terms of what is. So if there is a God then it is better to be a believer but if there is no God then it is better to be an atheist because it would be silly to believe in and worship a nonexistent Being...

Since we cannot prove that God exists, it is just a matter of what people choose to believe or disbelieve. Frankly, I think it is kind of risky to discount the idea that there is a God because if there is a God then there could be repercussions for not believing in that God, especially after we die. So I think it is smart for atheists to keep looking for evidence that God exists.

If there is no God and we believed there was a God the worst that can happen is that we die and there is nothing... We might have spent or lives worshiping and serving a nonexistent God, but if we lived a good life doing it we have really lost nothing except that we sacrificed our own personal desires, other fun things we could have been doing.

I have been thinking about this lately, since I have sacrificed all my time for God and I see no end in sight. What is it was all for nothing? Then I wake up and realize that is really not possible because of course there is a God and an afterlife. I sometimes just wish there wasn't so I could go back to having fun...

God doesn´t expect you to use all your time in service ! He expects you to have some fun ! I have seen too many burned out, exhausted workers for God. He wants you to be fresh, happy, rested and eager to witness. Fun is part of you being that way,

 

[Trailblazer]

God doesn´t expect you to use all your time in service ! He expects you to have some fun ! I have seen too many burned out, exhausted workers for God. He wants you to be fresh, happy, rested and eager to witness. Fun is part of you being that way,

That depends upon which religion you are in... The disciples and the Church have already done much of your work for you, so everyone knows who Jesus is now... Not so with my religion.

“O ye beloved of God! Repose not yourselves on your couches, nay bestir yourselves as soon as ye recognize your Lord, the Creator, and hear of the things which have befallen Him, and hasten to His assistance. Unloose your tongues, and proclaim unceasingly His Cause. This shall be better for you than all the treasures of the past and of the future, if ye be of them that comprehend this truth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 330

Then there is a lot of stuff like this, kind of makes you feel guilty when you are looking to have fun...

“Wert thou to consider this world, and realize how fleeting are the things that pertain unto it, thou wouldst choose to tread no path except the path of service to the Cause of thy Lord. None would have the power to deter thee from celebrating His praise, though all men should arise to oppose thee.

Go thou straight on and persevere in His service. Say: O people! The Day, promised unto you in all the Scriptures, is now come. Fear ye God, and withhold not yourselves from recognizing the One Who is the Object of your creation. Hasten ye unto Him. Better is this for you than the world and all that is therein. Would that ye could perceive it!”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 314

But I do try to have fun while I work...

 

[Willamena]

It's better to speak in terms of what you understand, rather than immutable certainties.

I think he did that (the former).

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think the religion of exclusivism and superiority is what is being rejected as it causes division and instead of love and harmony has created an ‘us and them’ society.

Any religion which does not teach that all men are equal regardless of religion or no religion, race, nationality or gender deserves to be rejected as we are one human family living on one planet.

If religion causes disunity then atheism is a better religion and to turn away from religions which preach others are infidels or unsaved is a truly religious act.

If religion does not seek the betterment of all humanity of what use is it? None is superior to another. We are all human beings.

“True peace and tranquillity will only be realized when every soul will have become the well-wisher of all mankind.”

Bahá’u’lláh

 

[Trailblazer]

I think the religion of exclusivism and superiority is what is being rejected as it causes division and instead of love and harmony has created an ‘us and them’ society.

Any religion which does not teach that all men are equal regardless of religion or no religion, race, nationality or gender deserves to be rejected as we are one human family living on one planet.

If religion causes disunity then atheism is a better religion and to turn away from religions which preach others are infidels or unsaved is a truly religious act.

If religion does not seek the betterment of all humanity of what use is it? None is superior to another. We are all human beings.

“True peace and tranquillity will only be realized when every soul will have become the well-wisher of all mankind.”

Bahá’u’lláh

“The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. The one true God, He Who knoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 288

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If there is no God and we believed there was a God the worst that can happen is that we die and there is nothing

This argument has been refuted previously by others:

• What if God exists and is offended by those who only believe to hedge their bet?
• What if you meet Allah on judgment day and He is angry that you chose the wrong god?
• What if you are reincarnated as a maggot for turning your attention to false gods?
• What if there is a god that rewards reason and punishes faith?
• What if the universe is run by a demon that punishes those that believe in gods?

There are also possible costs in this life

• What if there is no god and you devoted thousands of hours and dollars to a false religion?
• What if there is no god and you failed to mature authentically both intellectually and emotionally because you were taught that faith is a virtue and reason the enemy, and you never developed an internal moral compass because you were relying on a book to do that for you?

I'd say that the safest course of action is to lead an upright life as best you understand that to be. If that leads to a undesirable afterlife, then all one can say is that we were born into an unsafe and unfair universe and never had a chance but to guess correctly.

 

[Altfish]

Not really. "No religion" will include atheists but does not imply atheism.

But if no religion has significantly increased, is it not reasonable to predict that atheism has also increased?

 

[syo]

Atheists, though, have consciences which will answer the important questions just as religion's faithful do. And, when conscience-led moral advances like the equal treatment of women change their attitudes, atheists can change. They don't have to wait for their scripture-reading clergy to catch up to make moral progress.

if an atheist wants to kill, he will kill. if a christian wants to kill, he will commit a crime.

 

[shmogie]

That depends upon which religion you are in... The disciples and the Church have already done much of your work for you, so everyone knows who Jesus is now... Not so with my religion.

“O ye beloved of God! Repose not yourselves on your couches, nay bestir yourselves as soon as ye recognize your Lord, the Creator, and hear of the things which have befallen Him, and hasten to His assistance. Unloose your tongues, and proclaim unceasingly His Cause. This shall be better for you than all the treasures of the past and of the future, if ye be of them that comprehend this truth.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 330

Then there is a lot of stuff like this, kind of makes you feel guilty when you are looking to have fun...

“Wert thou to consider this world, and realize how fleeting are the things that pertain unto it, thou wouldst choose to tread no path except the path of service to the Cause of thy Lord. None would have the power to deter thee from celebrating His praise, though all men should arise to oppose thee.

Go thou straight on and persevere in His service. Say: O people! The Day, promised unto you in all the Scriptures, is now come. Fear ye God, and withhold not yourselves from recognizing the One Who is the Object of your creation. Hasten ye unto Him. Better is this for you than the world and all that is therein. Would that ye could perceive it!”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 314

But I do try to have fun while I work...

I am not sure what religion or god you follow, but I am sure you are very valuable to him/her/them, and they don't want you to destroy yourself physically or mentally. Recreation (fun) literally means " re create ". How much more valuable would you be to your faith if you were periodically recreated in strength, energy, and outlook ?

 

[shmogie]

if an atheist wants to kill, he will kill. if a christian wants to kill, he will commit a crime.

If an atheist believes his own sense of morality allows him to kill for what his own morality says killing is warranted, he will do so. If a Christian kills under circumstances where he has been told it is totally unwarranted, he has committed murder, a grievous sin against man and God.

 

[shmogie]

This argument has been refuted previously by others:

• What if God exists and is offended by those who only believe to hedge their bet?
• What if you meet Allah on judgment day and He is angry that you chose the wrong god?
• What if you are reincarnated as a maggot for turning your attention to false gods?
• What if there is a god that rewards reason and punishes faith?
• What if the universe is run by a demon that punishes those that believe in gods?

There are also possible costs in this life

• What if there is no god and you devoted thousands of hours and dollars to a false religion?
• What if there is no god and you failed to mature authentically both intellectually and emotionally because you were taught that faith is a virtue and reason the enemy, and you never developed an internal moral compass because you were relying on a book to do that for you?

I'd say that the safest course of action is to lead an upright life as best you understand that to be. If that leads to a undesirable afterlife, then all one can say is that we were born into an unsafe and unfair universe and never had a chance but to guess correctly.

Very surprisingly, I pretty much agree with you here ! I would say however that with all the what if's, there must be an ultimate truth. While living an upright life, do we have any obligation to seek that ultimate truth ? If it is impossible to find, how do we know that unless we keep seeking ?

 

[Curious George]

If an atheist believes his own sense of morality allows him to kill for what his own morality says killing is warranted, he will do so. If a Christian kills under circumstances where he has been told it is totally unwarranted, he has committed murder, a grievous sin against man and God.

Yet if a Christian believes God's sense of morality wants him to kill he will do so and be righteous about it. If an atheist believes his own sense of morality wants him to kill there he can be convinced otherwise.

People who want to kill will likely find a reason to do so. People who want to refrain from killing will likely find a reason to do so. It is not fair to try to generalize people as I have done here or you have done in your post to which I am replying. People make excuses.

 

[shmogie]

“The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. The one true God, He Who knoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words.”

“

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 288

Wise words, Christ said the same. Unfortunately, humans divide themselves continuously along all kinds of lines, race, sex, class, economic status, language, who dresses well and who doesn't. The differences in religion shouldn't create harsh divisions with steel walls topped by barbed wire and guards with machine guns telling each other how much better they are than those outside the walls. From a Christian perspective, the border should be pleasantly defined with trees, where people are free to cross when they choose. Since God loves all people equally, no one on the Christian side of the trees should have any sense of superiority. Since Christ said " No man comes to the Father except by me " we have a God given responsibility to cross through the trees to the other side to share the Good news of the Gospel to others. We cannot judge any person's souls, that is left to God, we can share in love, and each person may choose for themselves. The only time we should be concerned about our border is if dilution of our faith comes across, or heresy, or hostility. We must serve God in truth, and we cannot become, as Christ said " neither fish nor fowl ".

 

[shmogie]

Yet if a Christian believes God's sense of morality wants him to kill he will do so and be righteous about it. If an atheist believes his own sense of morality wants him to kill there he can be convinced otherwise.

People who want to kill will likely find a reason to do so. People who want to refrain from killing will likely find a reason to do so. It is not fair to try to generalize people as I have done here or you have done in your post to which I am replying. People make excuses.

No, I think you are wrong in your assessment. A Christian has a very clearly defined and focused instruction when killing another is moral. ONLY when one is defending ones self, or another from imminent and direct physical attack. God doesn't have " a sense of morality " He is morality, and he defines it for man. Our morality doesn't slide around and allow us to make excuses., outside if what is moral as defined is immoral, period.

 

[Curious George]

No, I think you are wrong in your assessment. A Christian has a very clearly defined and focused instruction when killing another is moral. ONLY when one is defending ones self, or another from imminent and direct physical attack. God doesn't have " a sense of morality " He is morality, and he defines it for man. Our morality doesn't slide around and allow us to make excuses., outside if what is moral as defined is immoral, period.

Yet if we were to look, could we find instances of Christians killing in God's name and otherwise? Of course we could.

I can understand, you don't want it to be so, but that doesn't make it so.