"Atheist Overreach" by Christian Smith

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Hi,
The care and love of children is in instinctive, and in many other species too. Who don't have a divine overseer. it is something we all share without having to have it explained to us.
Sad to say modernity no longer values or pursues agreement with instinct. The natural is being displaced by the artificial. This in service to the restless striving of power after power, which ends only in death.

Jung notices that the refusal of our instinctive voice tends to neurosis. How many repress their own deep conviction that there is something dreadfully wrong unfolding in our day? The mass exploitation of children in service to corporate greed being but one of many examples. Ignoring this on a large scale is inducing what Jung calls mass neurosis; which ends in the collapse of civilized society.

Science suggests that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. There is more to you and I than that which is empirically noticed and verified. My imagination is guided by the presence of God at its core. My will is subordinate to that imaginary presence.

George
 
Last edited:
Hi,
Sad to say modernity no longer values or pursues agreement with instinct. The natural is being displaced by the artificial. This in service to the restless striving of power after power, which ends only in death.

Jung notices that the refusal of our instinctive voice tends to neurosis. How many repress their own deep conviction that there is something dreadfully wrong unfolding in our day? The mass exploitation of children in service to corporate greed being but one of many examples. Ignoring this on a large scale is inducing what Jung calls mass neurosis; which ends in the collapse of civilized society.

Science suggests that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. There is more to you and I than that which is empirically noticed and verified. My imagination is guided by the presence of God at its core. My will is subordinate to that imaginary presence.

George

The neurosis develops into psychosis and all is darkness in the great escape ... a kind of trance-like state ... leaving us stumped!
 
Hi,
Sad to say modernity no longer values or pursues agreement with instinct. The natural is being displaced by the artificial. This in service to the restless striving of power after power, which ends only in death.

Jung notices that the refusal of our instinctive voice tends to neurosis. How many repress their own deep conviction that there is something dreadfully wrong unfolding in our day? The mass exploitation of children in service to corporate greed being but one of many examples. Ignoring this on a large scale is inducing what Jung calls mass neurosis; which ends in the collapse of civilized society.

Science suggests that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. There is more to you and I than that which is empirically noticed and verified. My imagination is guided by the presence of God at its core. My will is subordinate to that imaginary presence.

George
Maybe in your head, George. You have some strange and sometimes interesting views. and I use that term lightly.
 
Inability to parse complex subjects or thought and unwillingness to extend humanity to those with whom they disagree, a lack of compassion or humility, and a devotion to a way of thought that defines whether they do good or not has more to do with hope of reward or fear of punishment from the 'state' than from 'god'. 'God consciousness' allows for doing good in spite of 'State consciousness'.
Maybe in your mind Rita, you like George have some strange ways of thinking.

Legal goodness does not necessarily translate into moral goodness.
And who said it did. Not me. At the moment you seem to be arguing against something I haven't mentioned. I'm still waiting for your point in regard to god and morality. Your post was just inane word salad.
 
So if God is all good (omnibenevolent), and he doesn't sin........doesn't that mean then that because he is omnipotent and can do anything.....God would still be able to sin and God will still be good? If he wasn't capable of sin, would he still be omnipotent?
 
I think people are getting a little stuck on the question of God. What was interesting to me is the question of what might inform the atheist view and guide moral/ethical decisions - that likely atheism draws from a wide range of philosophies, many of them connecting back to God at some point in time. Whether or not one currently believes in God, Spirit, whatever one might call that, it seems the historic links are there. If those were all removed, then atheism as a solitary/isolated philosophy (do you even call it a philosophy? what would be the right word?) would not have much of a basis for moral behaviour/thought - at least that's what I thought the author was stating.
 
If those were all removed, then atheism as a solitary/isolated philosophy (do you even call it a philosophy? what would be the right word?) would not have much of a basis for moral behaviour/thought

Greek philosophy evolved largely independent of their religion. They did not base "good" on "God says so" but actually saw values like that as things above even the gods that were discovered by reason, not revelation. Epicureanism, for instance, largely ditched the gods, relegating them to their own realm that basically had nothing to do with ours. Some later Epicureans were even atheists and modern ones mostly are.

So, while modern humanism and other atheist schools may have values that trace to Christian heritage (and I don't deny that they do), it certainly does not need to be that way. And that Christian heritage, in many cases, drew on Greek philosophy as much as it did the Bible. So, I would argue that one can easily conceive of a school of values based on the Greek tradition of finding them through reason without reference to the Christian tradition. Had Christianity not happened, Hellenistic philosophy might have been the source of our values and reason, rather than revelation, would have been the means of finding them.

There is also the case of China, where values come primarily through Confucianism, which is also a school of philosophy, not a religion. Yes, it encouraged religion but as a tool of social order, not necessarily as a source of values.

So the fact that modern humanism etc. can be traced back to Christianity to some degree does not mean it can "all be traced back to God" nor does it mean that there has to be a faith in God involved at some point in discovering values. Reason has been used as much as revelation in finding those values, even by Christians.
 
Greek philosophy evolved largely independent of their religion. They did not base "good" on "God says so" but actually saw values like that as things above even the gods that were discovered by reason, not revelation. Epicureanism, for instance, largely ditched the gods, relegating them to their own realm that basically had nothing to do with ours. Some later Epicureans were even atheists and modern ones mostly are.

So, while modern humanism and other atheist schools may have values that trace to Christian heritage (and I don't deny that they do), it certainly does not need to be that way. And that Christian heritage, in many cases, drew on Greek philosophy as much as it did the Bible. So, I would argue that one can easily conceive of a school of values based on the Greek tradition of finding them through reason without reference to the Christian tradition. Had Christianity not happened, Hellenistic philosophy might have been the source of our values and reason, rather than revelation, would have been the means of finding them.

There is also the case of China, where values come primarily through Confucianism, which is also a school of philosophy, not a religion. Yes, it encouraged religion but as a tool of social order, not necessarily as a source of values.

So the fact that modern humanism etc. can be traced back to Christianity to some degree does not mean it can "all be traced back to God" nor does it mean that there has to be a faith in God involved at some point in discovering values. Reason has been used as much as revelation in finding those values, even by Christians.

Unless God is love and you love alien philosophy because it is a curious BS!
 
This is an interesting thread. I have so many ideas floating through my head right now. i also have not listened to the link in the OP.

One thought for me relates to internal vs external locus of control. Do we base our behaviour on some outside force/authority will respond, or on our own internal direction/gut/intuition/knowledge (not sure what word to use right now). Generally maturity is seen as moving from an external locus of control, listening to our parents, to an internal locus, acting according to our knowledge base, etc. Maturity also involves moving away from rigid black and white thinking to thinking that recognizes nuances and "greys".

I guess I'm saying that yes, I believe people can be moral and "good" without god. That being said, what is "good"?

I hope to listen to the link later.
 
Plato spent most of his dialogues trying to sort that one out. We're still debating the question 2000+ years later. IOW, "it's complicated".:)

That's my belief. Having worked in the field I did for so long did nothing to simplify the issue. I've met people who looked like the salt of the earth who would happily murder their grandmother. I've also met people who look horrific and who've had the kindest hearts. Then there's the people who have done the horrific, have repented and are now amazing. It's definitely complicated. Anyone who tries to simplify it down to a basic "remedy" is misguided.
 
Not to mention classic questions like, "If killing/murder is immoral, doesn't that make me immoral if I kill someone to stop them from killing others?" But if killing in defense or self-defense is allowed, how far do you go with that? Does that make a pre-emptive killing legal if you know someone is planning to or is likely to commit murder? And so on from there. If everything was black and white, answering the question "What is good?" would be easy and we wouldn't need moral philosophy. However, every attempt at making it that simple has ended up making it simplistic and easily abused instead. In the end, religion and moral philosophy may provide guidance, but rarely do they end up at truly simple answers.
 
I think people are getting a little stuck on the question of God. What was interesting to me is the question of what might inform the atheist view and guide moral/ethical decisions - that likely atheism draws from a wide range of philosophies, many of them connecting back to God at some point in time. Whether or not one currently believes in God, Spirit, whatever one might call that, it seems the historic links are there. If those were all removed, then atheism as a solitary/isolated philosophy (do you even call it a philosophy? what would be the right word?) would not have much of a basis for moral behaviour/thought - at least that's what I thought the author was stating.
The scenario I stated above is from Greek philosophy, and as one can see, it is probably harder for a theist to answer some questions through reasoning, than an atheist...We tend to resort to the "mystery" of God or as Rita stated, "Good is Good", but when theists break down the characteristics of God , how do we prove that God is good from those that we say are true?
 
Strange ... thinking and process is strange to some folk that go by law alone ... especially if they are in a position that allows them to bend it ... with considerable power ... something is bound to corrupt in a questionable way!

The bible does say to question all things that are mysterious ... thus the study of all that is god without limits!

There are constitutional nominalities that would fight this right down to the line they crossed to corrupt the power of love in their direction. Thus love is dangerously corruptible ...

Something more in our lives that's simple and to worry about getting complex! Falling in love can get you right into it ...

Thus the humble are dis powered and geared down after an impressive entanglement ... some say down a black hole and others describe it as wipe out ... vanilla sky? These strange essences require icons ... cause there's nothing in the real world like pure love, or pure intelligence as they tend to get mixed severely! It is a deux of a mix ... sometimes labelled a demiurge ... as one who would like to remain conscious when pleasing an intimate connection to yourself ... or what Einstein called ADa 'Micky Energy (expanded to Michael in another myth)!

And furthermore these have layers of energy like onions ... stories like this bring me to tears or rifts of jocularity.

On top of that a Storyteller Convention is taking place at UNB this weekend ... inclusive of aboriginals and Sheree Fitch ... and the question of having a million onions ...

Often there are truths buried in myths because Nu's truth are not well received by powerfully corrupt authorities ... go figure that one!
 
Last edited:
What was interesting to me is the question of what might inform the atheist view and guide moral/ethical decisions
There is no atheist view, it is just being human and not adopting someone/something else's morality.
that likely atheism draws from a wide range of philosophies,
And you would be wrong. Atheism is just the lack of belief in your/the religious claims of a god/gods. Nothing else can be added to it.
 
Back
Top