http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheistattacks.htm

I found this online and I have to say I agree with it. It made me think, what would happen if suddenly all the atheists overtook the governement and the majority of the country was run by atheists. What do you think would happen. I believe that religious people would be persecuted for their beliefs.

Often I am frightened at what comes out of the mouths of fellow atheists. They seem paranoid and vicious. And bent on brow beating the religious for the misdeeds and crimes of their ancestors regardless of their own moral character and the way they live their lives.

I don't quite understand it. Its frightening and angry and reactionary. Many times I have heard people comment on how they were told as young children that they couldn't go to heaven etc. And it seems to have burned a hole of hatred into these people's hearts.

Why so? Why do people get so bothered that others believe in God?

I havn't read the article yet but I actually think the world would be a much safer and welcoming place to be. I would love to have true seperation of god and state. The world would have far less reason to go to war, people would have less reason for hate and hate crimes. People would actualy be able to truley come together and fix whats wrong today with out always having to worry about possible offending someone or some group. Damn I hope that Happens soon. Religion is out dated and needs to be replaced. Anyway just my 2 cents worth.

I honestly think that militant atheists (which is what is being described in the article) are the only ones who are bothered by others believing in God. Most other atheists couldn't really give a fig.

Do you think "outmoding" religion could be viewed as persecuting believers Silver Cougar?


Aquatus I am like you and hoping that the majority of atheists couldn't give a fig! That's great!

You mean like what happens now with atheists being persecuted?

I think it would be a bit better if there wasn't a god factor in countries being run. It would force people to look at items and issues logically rather then having ancient scribblings to go from.



Because in many ways it affects them and/or their world view from their own moral compass.

I don't live in Iran so what they do doesn't affect me but I still speak out against them hanging teenage girls for defending themselves from rape.

Why? Because I see it as an injustice and wrong. Speaking against wrongs is a good thing last time I checked.

It's not that I care who worships what. I deffinatly cannot judge people based on that.

It's when people start trying to impress their religion onto others I have the issue with. When people think that their religion is the absolute truth, and the laws should reflect what their god says.. that's also a major issue.

When government has religion injected into it.. that's where bad things happen.

Yes but speaking out about the wrongs of others but ignoring your own wrongs is called being a hypocrite.

So why haven't you started a thread about the Columbine shootings or the other things done by atheists if its all about speaking out about the "wrongs" in the world?

So far it seems like you are quite selective about the wrongs you deem worthy of speaking on.

So the crusades is a biggie to you but Darfur...... Meh?

I agree with this. I don't even mind the push for religion among people but when a state senator can mention God on the senate floor then something is very wrong.

And what are my wrongs again that you want to bring up?

There was a time when the world was ruled completely by religion.
We now refer to this time as the Dark Ages.

True. Much like people defend militant christians aren't a reflection of all christians. I'd wonder at someone that use to believe in god and now subscribes to an anti-god philosophy. What makes one stop dedicating their life to god, so as to assume the demeanor there is and can never be, any such thing. Atheism, like christianity, is not a universal understanding or practice. It's strictly up to the individual to example the nature of their faith, even if it's now faith there is no thing to hold faith in.

I think that what should happen, or what is likely to happen, is a natural phasing out of religious ideologies in the ruling class.

I say natural because it may very well be an inevitable course that corresponds directly to the intellectual advancement of the human race. The more realizations, the more understanding we gain of our natural environment breeds an obvious apostasy from the ways of old.

What would happen if atheists ran things?........well if it is as a result of the natural course of things then it would bring nothing to fruition but positive results, for it would be as a result of advancement which of course denotes the action of moving forward.

As far as militant atheists, well there is always negative things brought to fruition when the ruling class is dominated by an ardency that is founded in disdain or repugnance of any ideology.

That was THONG not me ;P

*is strangling her internet*

Holy Crap I never noticed there were two of you! LOL sorry my bad!

So THONG!?

As to the question in the thread title, it depends on the atheists who are in charge.

to the point of the oppression of the religious, all it takes is one human with charisma to inspire a group of people into the eye for an eye doctrine. I don't understand why anyone who pontificates over the "evils" of religion would resort to the exact same behaviour that they decry. That is flawed logic if there ever was.

One thing I have noticed that I will add to your observations is that there seems to be a core belief in people that fault lies in the other guy, and that the responsibility for change is on the other guy. For example, it's always someone else who has to be tolerant. It's always someone else who needs to "wise up." It's not something that is based on belief or non-belief, but simply selfish of people to think that their right way is the true right way, their standard of a perfect world is the standard that everyone should hold. It's a human thing I suppose.

True , religion needs to be outmoded or it needs to grow up, we have been so conditoned to fear anything esepcially change that humanity is afraid of 'good" change....

anything is better than what it is now , it jsut can't get any worse unless we refuse to change.....Its common for the competition to create hysteria as is being done with athiests...why would anyone want to persecute someone for what they beleive, that is christianity's MO and BS requires force and threats and promiose of some vacation in brazil, oy vey.......

I bet if you asked the people who lived in the former USSR or maybe communist China could give you the best answers.
Irish

What rev r said about it depending on the people. It could go wrong. Just like christian societies with complete rule have gone completely wrong.

But can religion be revamped?! There are faiths now that reprise the old ways by interjecting contemporary models and practices. Neo-paganism, as one example. However in matters of dogmatic practice, it would may be considered the antithesis of faithfulness to the creed, and that would make it the antithetical icon's domain, i.e. that of devils and evil influences, and as such would engender an even more ardent loyalty to tradition. After all, it's 2000 years later and people today defend guidance they claim their faith(s) provide, must be taken the context of the time the advice was offered or the parable relating the wisdom, was penned. But if it is a matter of context, how can any guidance for relating to a world view that lived 2000 years ago, or more, apply in the year 2007 , 20 centuries after the advice was in any way contextually relevant to the times!?

If Atheists ran things.... I think many that claim to be theists in the position of running things, really are atheists beneath the facade. We go to war in the name of a mans god, to kill people being oppressed by another man who does so in the name of his different god. But how is that truly representing a benevolent cause or god? Everyone involved for that "reason" to war bleeds for the cause of faith in invisible masters that compel the cause to act that way. How does one kill people to prove they carry the standard of a loving god?! Unless of course they aren't. And the true worship is in the act of going to war, in the name of materialism and acquisition. But then again, that's always been a characteristic invested in the behaviors of religions gods. Invasion of others, under the standard of faith. My god told me to kill you and your god, type campaigns.

Are you sure about that? I think many a mistakes have been made in history based on this belief. I don't think things are so bad right now that it can't get any worse? Of course it could get worse. Pretty darned fast too if you ask me.

Not comparable. Especialy since we're *NOT* talking about putting in communism as a government. Those Communist leaders and governments were forcing people to stop worshiping religions. I seriously.. SERIOUSLY doubt that if we took religion out of the government and had more and more athiests in verious offices like the senat, house of reps, and even the white house, that they would force people to stop worshipping whatever faith they have. They just wouldn't be swayed by the religious right like the current government has done.

Nice red harring though.

Man goes to war for four reasons they are expansion, financial gain, revenge or power.
Religion, liberation and concern are just the excuses to justify the above.
Man does not need God or a belief in God to make war he only needs himself.

Irish

True... true history is mans mistakes repeated, really not learning anything....Well the planet is about tapped out of resources, We have barely come to understand basic socialization skilss, we are a relgious regime as it is being lied to calling us 'free', True are you reconsidering Athiesm?????

And there will come a time when man realizes he does not need to go to war. And there will come a time when man realizes that it does not matter what you worship.

Unfortunatly, I doubt those lessons will ever be learned untill it is to late. For now wars are being faught for greed and religion.

An atheistic opposition in the eyes of believers does seem to constitute these "evil influences" that may "engender an even more ardent loyalty to tradition".



Claiming religious devoutness in many cases of the ruling class is possibly a facade, being religious at the right moment to the right people does have its advantages in the political arena......at the moment.

But is this an example of how some religious adherents are corraled into following the course of leaders that play a tune of religious verse through the streets like the pied piper of lore........this reason may very well be why religion has been professed and encouraged to the masses by the ruling class. Its a means to an end.

Oh God no! LOL (excuse the pun!)

Nope I just see hatred for what it is, no matter what package it comes in.

As bad as things are in the US I think that things could be a lot lot worse.

To me I agree with the article. Why not just allow people to believe in the tooth fairy? Why this need to rid ourselves of religious people.

Substitute the word "Jews" for religious people and you'll see how it comes across to me.

In this world it really wouldnt matter, theres already a seperation of power between church and government. Besides some small less developed countries religion is not used to justify actions anymore. Government itself in the modern world is already aethiest in the sense of not following an order of the church much like they did in the middle ages to spark crusades and the such and much like how extremist and terrorist use the Koran as grounds to kill others.

Religion itself, or lack thereof is not the enemy, its people who find any way to abuse power and their fellow peers who are the enemy. Whether its an aethiest using their free will mentality to kill someone, or someone killing for a "holy" purpose, they are both using an excuse to commit the same crime and it has happened... these are the people we have to worry about and gladly they will not be in power anytime soon(if at all).

I agree with that ninji however it strikes me very much that religious people are persecuted as unenlightened. That's what I am curious about as an atheist. I don't see what the big deal is but for the last few months on this site I have been appalled at the language and hostility directed at religious people.

So I wonder if this seems like the new trend. First strip away people's rights by saying they infringe on other people's rights. Then add more to that.

Here's an example. You can't have a publicly paid for manger scene to celebrate Christmas but its ok to have a menorah. The menorah is considered equal to the Christmas tree.

Freedom for all ?

Except a Christmas tree is a religious symbol of pagans

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm

but that's ok for the government to pay for

and a menorah is a religious symbol of the Jews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah

and that's ok for the government to pay for

But we can't have anything Christian? It seems to me the Jews, Pagans and Muslims are considered a minority in the world so they are able to slide in under that gauge but Christians are considered "dominant" and are treated with a lot of hostility.

It seems to me there would be a reactionary push to persecute Christians if there were a turn on the majority.

To be honest... when people put up the trees... the vast majority think it as a christian thing.

If it was to revert back to it's pagan roots.. you'll quickly see it dissapearing.

....Hatred is a a direct result of any exclusivist group....I think moving towards celebrating diversity, being an example of tolerance and compassion does wonders, i live in a diverse area, at first it was very racist myslef and a freind stood up and set an example of tolerance she was black,( interestingly she caught alot of crap from her own people, she was constantly approached and asked why would she be my friend))I'm white and toghether by example we demonstrated that we could be freinds and it brought the neighborhiood toghether, i have had ghetto black chicks come up to me and shake my hand and tell me I am a sista ( that means we are the same) it doesn't matter to me of race, color, religion, proffession ( in my neighboorhod drug dealing is a proffession) you are family to me, and worthy of my resepct for being human, i have had dealers apologize to me for blatant scandalous behavior in front of children and make adjsutments to honor the innocence of childhood........peace can work, anyone is capable of decent behavior regardless of relgion or race.... My friend and i at work have stood toghether on tolerance( thier was alot of christiana exclusivity before we came on board) and in no time there is no more of it, the owner to supports diversity and tolerance of all peoples..... .it only takes one,.....We each now all of us in our lives in our own way can be a bridge and if enough of us do that things will change......There is no reason not to, it doesn't matter what relgion you can be a friend to anyone its CHOICE........

Nah alot of devout Christians are aware of this. Its the ones that don't want to put up the mangers who are unaware and probably wouldn't care anyway.

If atheists ran things it would be no different to the way it was when theists ran things.

Believe what I believe or you die.

Well lets be honest, christmas really isnt a religious holiday anymore anyway. Its all about santa nowadays, kind of like a special holiday made for kids. Much like halloween which was supposed to be a day to worship the spirits lost in the previous year in old pagan religions.. now relegated to a kids holiday for dressing up and getting candy. So nowadays there really isnt any religious value anymore to most people.(atleast in the US).

Actually that's not totally true. Many Christians I know are offended at the commercialization of Christmas and I know quite a number of Christians who don't allow their kids to trick or treat.

I think its bonkers but I gotta respect their sincerity.

What about when god commanded it?

Man exercised the free will to believe it worth obeying the command, in the name of the god they thought was worth the worship, for asking such a thing.
It's all man. God inspires, man has to decide to do what is asked of them, in god's name. And when they do, they say their god is worth killing for, when it tells them it needs man to kill for it.

It would depend on whether the atheists were spiritual based or mind manacled, defiance based atheists. My experience with such mind manacled, defiance based atheists on alt.atheim is very scary indeed. Out of 210 forums I've been on over 9 years, alt.atheism is by far the nastiest forum, the only thing approaching it as a distant second is a skateboard forum. On the other hand, I have been on spiritual based atheist forums such as Buddhist forums that far surpass the Christian forums for spiritual values and compassion...so it all depends on what type of atheist you are talking about.

There are many flavors of atheists...natural atheists, personal atheists, explicit atheists, implicit atheists weak atheists, strong atheists, discovery atheists, reactionary atheists, indoctrinated atheists and of course the bad ass atheists with attitude aka BAAWA varieties. But the defining characteristic that leads an atheist to peace is whether they are a 'spiritual based atheist' or 'defiance based atheist.'' I have to laugh sometimes when I read the fantasies of atheists that think atheism will take over the world. It would take a different brand of atheist to persuade many to change if they investigate the online atheists of the usenet to any degree.

Without spiritual values, the atheist is sunk. The conundrum of the mind manacled, defiance based, spiritually sick atheist is this. They need spiritual values to be at peace - yet their own defiance blocks them from seeking and finding these values.

The atheist that only has a foundation of ego and hate will never find peace. If any theist questioning their faith should wonder onto alt.atheism, for instance, they could see this for themselves with many spiritually sick example members and their projection of this spiritual sickness and self hate onto others.

What is missing in these atheists lives?

Do they need to get religion?

Not necessarily.

As we see, many people claiming to be religious are just as bad off as atheists or sometimes worse.

"People that practice religion are worried about going to hell - people that practice spirituality have already been to hell and don't want to go back."

Spiritual values is what they are short on.

Such atheists full of defiance and devoid of spiritual values are 'dogmatic skeptics', whereas atheists that are open to spiritual values are of the order of 'skeptical skeptics.' The spiritual based atheists have not forgotten 'All Deities reside within the human breast' as Blake wrote. There is a world of difference between the two types of atheists...a night and day difference. The spiritual based atheists 'deifies humanity and peace' the defiance based atheist 'deifies their ego' and loses any connection with humanity and becomes a haggard, shell of a human.

A lot of atheists I run into make their intellect their God. They do not know that academic smarts are not the same as peace smarts. Until they can transcend their ego they will never find the answer (peace) they seek. It is the same for those that think money is all that is standing between them and happiness. So it goes for the ego and intellect based person that is devoid of spiritual values. Always remember...one thing only goes so far with giving a person a good life. Seek balance. Spiritual growth as well as humans are not perfect, but we can all do better at being humane if we try.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0


There are many flavors of atheists...natural atheists, personal atheists, explicit atheists, implicit atheists weak atheists, strong atheists, discovery atheists, reactionary atheists, indoctrinated atheists and of course the bad ass atheists with attitude aka BAAWA varieties. But the defining characteristic that leads an atheist to peace is whether they are a 'spiritual based atheist' or 'defiance based atheist.'' I have to laugh sometimes when I read the fantasies of atheists that think atheism will take over the world. It would take a different brand of atheist to persuade many to change if they investigate the online atheists of the usenet to any degree.

In short you must become spiritual based atheists to offer something to the religious crowd instead of the defiance based atheists that many of you are.

What is a defiance based atheist?

Let me give you an example via some discussion with 'N'

If we look at N's youth he showed defiance from the start. He knew at a young age God was repulsive without even studying and told his parents what to do when it came to marching orders.


N: "Dragged to Sunday school 3 times, hated the songs, thought God was repulsive, refused to go ever again."


V: Now at adulthood, 'N' carried this defiance with him and refuses to let others think for themselves and demands all think as he does or else.


N: "Theists like you (V) should be given electric shocks every time they use parables. That is my new policy."


V: As Professor Peter Kreeft remarked on the subject of morality: First level morality could be called survival morality - lets not hit each other on the head so none of us will die. Second level morality could be justice morality - lets not hit each other on the head because it is not fair or not right. Third level morality could be called 'transcend the ego' morality - lets not hit each other because we love each other.


N: "Professor Peter Kreeft is a Christian. This is an atheist group. Why would you think someone who bases their morality on the Bible and the supernatural has anything relevant to say to an atheist? Why are you promoting Christian values? Some agnostic you are. Some freethinker you are."

end


I did not know Professor Kreeft was a Christian. I had listened to a lecture series from the library on the Philosophy of Religion - Faith and Reason he authored. He gave no indication of what religion he was. I did not need to know his religious convictions to come to a conclusion about what he said. I look at what was said and not at who said what. 'N' demonstrates how the mind manacled, defiance based atheists gets blinded by prejudice and ego at every turn.

Atheists say they operate on truth and not by faith. If we look at the 3 examples Kreeft gave, all 3 can be tested by practical application. Even the 'transcend the ego' concept can be tested by any freethinking atheist. All they have to do is practice kindness and being charitable to humanity as opposed to practicing hatred and ill will. Then they can test this out for themselves. Even if the atheist does not wish to test level three morality, level one and two have nothing to do with spiritual values. Yet the mind manacled, defiant atheists throws the whole lot out because they get blinded to the discussion due to prejudice and small minded thinking.

No, 'N', a good agnostic is open to the discussion from all sides. A proper atheists and theist would be as well. For how could an atheists claim to serve truth, when they shut their mind to the discussion and block out anything that their ego demands them to. I guess in your mind a good atheists is a yes man that runs by herd instinct and nothing else. No judging truth on it own, truth is defined not by testing, but by guilt by association in your mind 'N'.

Freethinker is a popular term thrown around atheists and agnostic circles. I use it myself to describe myself.

http://www.freethoughtforum.org/about/freethought.aspx

I've only used 'N' as one example here and he not singled him out. If I wanted to write a book on the subject I could have offered you an almost endless supply of examples. For instance. I posted on the subject of "Peace Tools for Atheists, Agnostics and Believers" to the 'alt.atheism' to open up some dialogue on what tools are available for the atheist or agnostic to use to generate inner peace in place of organized religion. All the tools and concepts I discussed were available for any person to use without the belief in God.

In my post I covered many tools from simplicity, compassion, classical philosophical studies, ethics, mindfulness, reciprocity, charity, accepting impermanence, developing gratitude and contentment, cutting back on craving and desires, working with natural law, balanced living, etc. I illustrated how I use freethinking to take tools for peace wherever I find them without prejudice and evaluate the tool on it own and not under guilt by association. All the tools I discussed were available to use without the belief in God.

I received the following responses to my post on inner peace tools:

"I've never been not at peace. What you offer makes me physically ill. It's like a nasty man come round to tell little kiddees he has candy for them if they touch his pee pee. You know, most of the atheists I know are as good as children are at discerning misrepresentation. You aren't trying to help anyone but your own self. Go away, we have no interest in touching your pee pee."

"First of all, this is a newsgroup, not the freaking public library. Keep it short and to the point. Second, you're full of s***."

"Stop posting your vile polemic deliberately nasty, lying Christian? Please go away. No-one is buying your poisonous diatribe. Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?"

"We know this deliberately nasty, slandering liar is a Christian by his fruits. A liar as well as an idiot. Don't be so f***ing stupid."

"What the f*** has philosophy got to do with your in-your-face psychopathy?"

"You wouldn't know "virtuous behaviour" if it hit you over the head, whining hypocrite who needs to get the log out of his own eye before accusing us of a projection of his own deficiencies."

"So f***ing what? Keep it to yourself and nobody will know what an a**hole you are."

"Why would any atheist need tools for peace?"


I did not receive one reply offering to discuss this topic, only abusive replies condemning me and my offer for the discussion of finding inner peace. All these replies came from non-freethinking, mind manacled, defiant atheists. How do I know they are such? Because of their replies. I do not expect for anyone to agree with any or all of my tools. But if we disagree with a concept, we must have another concept to replace what we have torn down in our minds as wrong. How do we know what is wrong unless we know what is right? With this group, all they could offer to replace my tools were 'ad hominem' arguments to destroy me and not destroy the concepts. Such non-freethinkers are characterized not by sound judgment, rationality and wisdom, but by a prejudiced insobriety of opinion that roots itself of egoistic pride. Through a life based in condemnation prior to investigation, they do not see that as they go to extreme measures to have no connection with spirituality, their actions also causes a lose of connection with any humanity.

Sure tearing others down appeals to ones ego and pride, but so did torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we need a different way to find self worth. As you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds and water these seeds within you as well. As you give so you receive. Is that from the bible or karma? No, it is just universal law. Do we like to be beaten down? Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well as others peace. It takes no energy from me to pass something by and leave it alone in peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to pick something up to destroy it.

(When I posted this paragraph earlier, an atheist piped to accuse me of hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato when I pick it up to eat it. Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says I must spew venom from my mouth to destroy others. If you can get over fishing for red herrings and get onto bigger fish to fry you will see a world of difference in your peace practice.)

That is the beauty of being a freethinker. We can think for ourselves. As such, when we get a toolbox we can decide which tools to use for the job. Some tools are used a lot, other tools are left alone for the time being, and still others are trashed when we see they are broken and useless. Traditional freethinkers do not accept me as one of their group, since I draw from spiritual paths as well as wordily areas to garner wisdom to live at peace. Traditional freethinkers do not like anything that comes from religion. Kind of a misnomer isn't it...I'm a freethinker...but I must block out everything that comes from religion and spiritual traditions and whatever other prejudice I wish to inject into the equation? Psychologist William James once said, "A great many people believe they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." When we limit prejudice we can open our minds to truth and peace. And realize the truth of Blake's words that "all deities reside within the human breast." Yes, if it is religion that an atheists need to adopt, they only have to look as far as the religion of humanity. But just paying secular humanism lip service will not do any good. Our talk of spiritual values must match our actions.

Spiritual values and atheists do not generally mix. One atheists gave his views on this subject of discussing spiritual tools to live by:

AK writes:

"What is spirit or spirituality? Without knowing what you mean by the word, one can't know what you mean. Why study something for which you not only have no evidence, but not even a definition?"

Yes, spiritual concepts are hard to define, just as the source of the wind is hard to define. Since spiritual matters deal with the unseen and the unknown, how can we define them perfectly? If we could do that they would not be spiritual studies. You can't see why one person is loving and kind and another person is a fiend of perennial shame, hate and destruction. Nor can you see what made the hate monger change into a kind and loving human. We can describe spiritual concepts and the journey that made the change possible, but it is impossible to put our finger on it all exactly. Spiritual growth is a journey that is a never ending, an imperfect process in this life. But just as we can see the effects of the wind, while being blind to its source; we can most definitely see the difference in people that incorporate spiritual values within their lives when compared to people that live a life devoid of any spiritual values.

Their are many fields of spiritual studies. We can separate the studies into two main fields; the corporeal and the meta-corporeal. Some of these studies deal with energy fields, meditative states of consciousness, out of body and near death accounts, psychic research, etc. Most of my work is in the corporal realm. I leave the advanced studies to those better qualified for it than myself. Britain and the US both have centers for psychic research. Plenty of information is out there if you are interested in studying it.

"No man is so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other counsel than his own. He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master." Ben Jonson

No one said we have to 'investigate it all,' but we do have to give it some thought if we wish to be at peace. A Hindu sage once told me "Just as water floes downhill without effort but requires outside forces and energy to make it move uphill. So the human consciousness falls to its lowest levels of the senses without effort and energies to make our consciousness gravitate to more than our base desires." As such without effort the defiance based atheists sinks deeper and deeper into sickness and tragedy as time goes by.

The business of humanism is 'all our business' if we with to live life at peace. This relationship of interdependent humanistic balance can best be visualized in the 3 corners of a triangle which represents the spiritual realm, other persons and ourselves At the top goes Higher Power / God of Peace and God of Nature / Yahweh / Buddha / The Dharma / Nature / Karma / Universe or whatever you choose as the unseen force behind all. On the bottom right corner of the triangle goes other people. On the left bottom corner of the triangle goes yourself. Keeping this relationship in harmonious balance helps develop compassion for others and humility within ourselves.

We learn to think about others and the spirit as well as our own needs and we can then see we are all interdependent and not independent with all. Once you see this balance you will realize that we all share the same breath and no need to practice hatred or develop ill will towards others. It is much better to develop compassion for others. For as we develop compassion for others we develop peace within, just as it is a law that when we develop hatred for others we develop hatred within.

No, egocentricity is not good for spiritual work and we need to be open to others ideas and embrace them as nourishment for your growth and sustenance for life - as no one person is god. As a freethinking agnostic I AM FREE to look for truth wherever the road takes me. I discriminate against no one. As such, I study with the Christians, the Buddhists, the Jews, the Muslims, the Taoists and even find truth as I study with the atheists.

I was at a religious discussion where the group was composed of a wide spectrum of believers and non believers. One atheist said he ran his life by the golden rule. A theist then injected that the golden rule came from the bible, which made the atheist wince. The atheist seemed to take pride in his self sufficiency and did not like to run his life by anything that came out of the bible. When it was suggested that the concept of golden rule might be from an earlier source than the bible, then the atheist was relieved.

This was a good reminder to me to examine where my guiding light resides?

Is it ego based or truth based?

When the guiding light of this atheist was not grounded in the bible he was happy. But when it came from an area that he did not approve of, he was upset. How can the same material be used to build a palace by one man, yet only build a hovel for another? By one spiritual practitioner seeing truth and applying it to live a life at peace, and the other person only seeing prejudice, problems and doing nothing.

Every religion was made by man and as such every religion is imperfect as it is run by man. Despite these imperfections, each religion also has many "perfection's" within it as well. We can still be open to peace generating tools from any of the religions and spiritual traditions that are available to us if we are serious about being at peace. This requires us to run our life by truth and not by prejudice. In the Sermon on the Mount, it was reported that Jesus said: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). Nowadays this verse is commonly referred to as “The Golden Rule,” and is more commonly quoted as: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Is the story of Jesus a myth? I don't know, but there seems to be real and substantive reasons for the myth theory to be true. In any case, I can put principles before personalties and look at what was said instead of who said what to get at the bottom line truth. Even if Jesus was myth, it has no bearing on the practical application of the golden rule of reciprocity anymore than the practical application of Taoists beliefs that come from the myth of Lao Tzŭ.

Here are some of the earliest sources for this concept of reciprocity

~1970-1640 BCE "Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause him thus to do." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient Egypt, tr. R.B. Parkinson.

* ~700 BCE "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5, Zoroastrianism.

* ? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.

* ~550 BCE "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Tanakh, new JPS translation, Leviticus 19:18, Judaism.

* ~500 BCE "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Now, whether you believe in God or believe in Jesus or are an atheist or Buddhist does this wisdom not apply to you? This truth is universal in nature as it is based not on being of a certain religion, other than that of the religion of humanity. In this case, you can adopt a peace generating tool and apply it to your life irrespective of your religious beliefs or lack thereof. I had to chuckle one time when an atheists argued that the golden rule is not perfect, so he said he does not follow it. When I questioned him about what he does follow as well as the state of perfection that applied to his life, all he could do was reply with ad hominem attacks.

If we are waiting for perfection when it comes to spiritual studies we will always be disappointed. Before applying perfection to anything outside of us, we should examine the perfection within us. The nature of humans is that of imperfection, so we must always look towards direction and forget perfection. I heard a story one time in a Yoga lecture that illustrates this point. "Range is of the ego - Form is of the soul." The only thing we need to be concerned with is how is our form when it comes to our spiritual practice and our life.

Regarding the golden rule? It is more perfect than imperfect, so it is a most useful tool to live a life at peace by. And when we combine it with other tools such as universality, natural law, contrasting the greater good with the greater right, flourishing of the species theory, etc., the synergistic effect is close to perfection as humans can get with this subject. But it takes some thinking and one will not see it without an open mind. i believe this is why religion was created in the first place. Most people cannot give this subject of morals the time needed, so religion is a condensed and easy to assimilate form of prepackaged morals. You only hope the packing was done right from the start as we can see that many religious devotees of the past have use it as a scapegoat to do harm to others.

I see this predisposition to destruction many times in responses I receive from my posts. The critiques offer much in the line of 'no goods' but they seldom do they offer any substantive tools to finding peace. Sure, I do not have it '100% right' but I have it 'right enough' to be able to be at peace if I apply these principles. If I waited for perfection, I would never act. I use the tools at hand.

Aristotle ~ "It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible."

This being able to 'rest satisfied' is something the perfectionists lack and why they will never be at peace until they stop collecting concepts and start using the concepts of peace generations. The atheist I mentioned above demonstrated this with his blanket dismissal of the golden rule since it is not 100% perfect. He could offer no substitutes for the golden rule, all he could do was succumb to personal attacks on me.

We can examine our actions to see what useful tools for finding peace we offer to others. This evaluation says a lot about our own practice of generating inner peace. When you practice peace promotion with others you will reap inner peace promotion. When you practice destroying others peace, you will reap self destruction of inner peace. I suggest any atheists wishing to find inner peace within their life adopt the creed of the atheists (their version of prepackaged morals) and become secular humanists as a good first start.


The 'informal creed' of atheism.

An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church.

An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said.

An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/


"The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles"


• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

Council for Secular Humanism

Wow I didn't read all of that but so far I can agree that as an Atheist I have gotten similar responses and personal attacks from other Atheists. I don't believe in "spirituality" either. So I'm wondering about your point that without spirituality one can't have a fair perspective?

I don't think 'spirituality' is the correct word to use maybe 'conciousness'. From what I got out of it I think it is more about substituting God for something else. Edgar Mitchell did this with the 'collective conciousness', we are all here to build the collective conciousness for the benefit of others in the future that are able to tap into this resource. If you don't do this you are left with two options, 1 dismiss anything that relates to God or spirituality, or 2 change the things you know to allow the 'god' process in. (Similar to how evolutionist continue to change dates of the human chimp split when ever something comes along to upset their scientificly calculated beliefs). If you have not got a reason behind life then you are only living it for yourself and not for the benefit of others. For me I can quite happily discuss atheism with a person that is able to explain their belifs in a structured and aimed way. As opposed to some that feel that God does not exist and thats it and if anybody speaks against them they hide behind their standpoint like it is a defence. They believe it allows them to do what they want when they want and to whom they want. It is the same for religious believers that fall into the same trap and do evil acts in the name of religion thinking that it can shield them from condemnation.

As for what would happen if Atheists ran things.... there would be no difference it would still be the same junk being spewed out by those in charge just under a different banner, all the time claiming they are doing the will of the people they represent for the good of mankind. That is something that some atheists need to think about when they charge all Christians for offences commited by some people hiding behind the banner of Christianity. It would not be fair to say all Americans are war-mongering, capitalist, bullies just because W.Bush decides to invade countries instead of using diplomacy.

True, I gotta admit, if left to some, spirituality would be pulverized, become the OTHER religion, when it simply applys to anyone and it means participating in the process of life and we all are, so it applys to us all....

conciousness is what we are aware of , what we know, individually, collectively, the beleifs we adhere to the systems we support... show what you really know or what you are aware of or what are you are concious of....Life evolves, or changes, that is really the underliying deeper implications of the evolution idea,and its observable....Hysteria has been created around the idea of evolution from a fear construct, typically a fear construct creates a panic around ideas that are counter to theirs, it has an inverstment in YOUR fear.........Ask youself if your diety is All that is wouldnt it be safe to assume evolution too is oart of all that is....

I see it as another trait of exclusivity, to imagine there is a conflict between evolution and creation theories.
Evolution is simply defined as, change. The world isn't the same as it was in the beginning, when it was generated from who knows what exactly, anyway. Creation says that "what", was called god. So if god , from the void, created all that is, that changed the void to now contain all that is created within it. Change is co-creative. Wrap it all up in a bow and call it a deific being, it's still pro-creation that make for change, and futures become the past because every action gives us some where else to go forward, or change where we are. I think it's the exclusivist cause to be right, the ego, that feels there's only one right beginning, which complicates any theory of what comes next, that make it seem like change is a bad thing.

As I said to you before I have no problem with (or fear about) scientific discoveries that have been shown to be observable. eg. micro-evolution. What i do have concerns about are the people that spout scientific theories as fact even though they have not been reproduced in an observable way. They are built on nothing but educated guesswork and circumstantial evidence. Scientists argue amongst themselves regarding these problems. I have great respect for the scientists that study these phenomenon, they are trying to find answers to questions that will benefit all of mankind. I personally feel that those that jump on their coat-tails to put down others without doing their own personal examination of the subject from a neutral perspective are rather sad. I have spoken to evolutionists on these boards and rather than them just saying 'evolution is right cos your God is a load of crap' they explain their reasoning and give evidence in a way that makes sense. It still leaves me with questions regarding some aspects of evolution and I don't agree with it all. Does that mean I am wrong? or that they are wrong? Neither. It means that we are all right, from our own personal understanding of the subject after studying it in a fair unbiased manner.

Again you turn to the 'fear construct' as a defence or accusation to make your point. If this 'fear construct' was so overwhelming to influence every decision and thought then no-one would get out of bed (if they wern't scared to get in it in the first place.) It would be just as easy for me to state "Hysteria has been created around the idea of creation from a fear construct, typically a fear construct creates a panic around ideas that are counter to theirs, it has an inverstment in YOUR fear". The 'fear construct' argument is nothing but a foggy patch anybody can hide behind when they don't want to allow people their own thoughts. It is something thats used so you can feel sorry for others ' oh poor little thing, stuck in that fear construct and too scared to come out'. Fear is nothing but an emotion that stops us from doing something we feel is dangerous. It is not a construct you create around you to ward off bad things you don't agree with. But it is something some choose to hide behind instead of investigating things fully. Sometimes were scared to enter a cave because of what we think is in their. But how can we learn whats in their without going in and investigating it. Others can tell us but we'd just say they are wrong or have been brainwashed by those that went before. The only way we can know is to have the guts to take a leap of faith and find out for ourselves. Some have been in other caves but didn't like it so they think all caves are bad so don't investigate this new cave.

If people would allow themselves to think beyond gods, they would have no use for entity idols!

If atheists ran the US government I think eventually like anything else, the human ego would overcome them as well. Power is a thing best handled with balance. We would need opposite opinions in order to create that balance. I live in a free country where people are free to believe as they choose as long as they don't invade the rights of others. As long as our govenment keeps that in mind they'll do fine either way.
The only problem I have is my tax money going to support religion, that includes being on the money I use. Any of it anywhere in our government is a promotion of faith/religion on everyone. I don't see anything free about that.

I have to say that whether it is the religious or the non-religious ruling eventually the same problems will arise. As Curiosity has stated the Human Ego is far stronger then our beliefs or lack thereof and eventually a non-religious government will make the same mistakes as a religious one.

I must agree with curiosity that balance is the most important aspect of rulership.

As long as the rulers comprehend that anyone, be they religious or not, no matter the color or beliefs or sexual preference are equal it is fine. But when they eventually disregard that (As happens sooner or later with all governments) Then persecution WILL Begin.

The fact is that if an Aethiest was voted Prime Minister of Australia, or into the White House for that matter, he would still be subject to Public opinion and be swayed in much the same way that a religious man is. This is one of the beauties of democracy, that eventually whoever rules, they must subject themselves to the scrutiny of the public.

I have a friend that is a goddess worshiper. She is also fond of calling herself a quiet occupier of the new vision. So, in that respect, she takes a permanent marker and augments the "god" part on the currency, to "freedom". And on her birthday, it becomes "goddess". (In freedom we trust. In goddess we trust). She's been doing it for years, getting the idea off of a bill she got at the bank that had "Freedom" written back to back along the outside border and all the way around the bill. Front and back. I was amazed the bank released it for circulation. But she was inspired from that day forward, to make her own mark and send her own message, on a federal reserve note. Love it.

I commend her fortitude. I would like to see the issue taken care of permanently. I think that would happen with a secular government.

curiosity,

At one level I completely agree with you. Here in canada, I do not like the idea that our charters reference "God" (and the queen). Removing the preferential treatment of one belief structure would be a step to recognizing the equality of everybody within our multicultural framework.

The problem however, is the nature of humanity. Somebody will always want to put their own "label" onto things, much like gw's friend. What is of interest is how people react to these little efforts of expression. Some think nothing of it, some think of it as (in this case) defacing a legal note. Very few would consider it any kind of threat to their way of life, or worldview. But what when enough people do it? Then we start to see a reaction. So what would a completely secular government bring? A change in symbolism, but little else. Cultural factors are far greater than religious factors (here in the west). So long as people make appeals to authority, an authority will be created to appeal to.

Great point Hyper..i was thinking the first work of order would be into unifying our conciousness, , seeing all as equal and integral to the whole , raising awarenss, seeing that which benefits one benefits all , and seeing that which we fail to to for one is a failure to all we simply do not have the maturity to change things at this time we are barely out of kindergarten, WE have a planet that is tapped out and a whole lot of people saying its nothing to worry about,and a whole lot of people who have yet to question their own beleifs ..... At this juncture we almost have to take a poll as to if enough people give a damn to build something of a higher vision.. the roots are being layed it seems .....i am optimistic, but even this may be too optimistic even for me..One day at a time is about the best step at this point..would you agree??

Sheri,

In order to seek a "higher order" one must first be aware that a "higher order" is possible.

As much as I do not like repeating things, I am again stating how so much comes down to habituation. I would be too idealistic to think the culture of modern man would turn on a dime when its inertia is like that of an oceanliner. Like the oceanliner, a quick turn would only come when "clear and present threats" present themselves, much like the rock or the iceburg. Much like the oceanliner, not all cultures are awake at the helm to notice and react in time, and thus are now lost. Man won't be gone as a result of these disasters though. It is a case of will mankind wake up in time to see the threats on the current course, or will the oceanliner sink leaving the survivors to start afresh. Evolution and revolution (of man's contructs): while one is fast and discontinuous and the other is slow, they tend to eventually result in the same outcome (as both are driven by reactionary forces).