Is Atheism unethical?

[nickelfire]

kwanyu said:

Inspirations are not natural impulses.
If no spirit
then from wence comes inspired idea?

Well I was referring to making good or bad choices, and we know which is which depending on upbringing, temperament, etc… I believe in karma which will bite me if I stress continual trespass on the right choice, but it isn't the only thing that affects my choices, and this is the point I was making.
As for inspired idea, this is a good point which any atheist might lamely rebut, because I agree with you, I’m not going to try ;D

[nickelfire]

piper said:

Okay but what guide do we use to return from the act of unjustice or unacceptable behavior? This is where I think the average person adhering to a religous or spiritual practice may have a leg up on the atheistic person. IMO

I actually don't agree, I'd say that in this day and age, it might be less lopsided. If an atheist is someone who has lost faith, he is someone who has been on the other side of the coin, he has seen both sides. From here he might stay in this position, or he might realize that returning to a spiritual root is necessary and perhaps inevitable with the right amount of outside pressure. If the latter, I sincerely doubt this person will practice religion or spirituality like everyone else. His views on theology and god will have been transformed because of his period of non-belief.
I have no proof of this but if you use common sense, how could an atheist return to the same harmful beliefs that drove him away from the practice in the first place?
I cannot comment on the potency of this new spirituality, but I’d imagine it might be practical and it might be powerful, a force his religious and atheistic predecessors would be hard pressed to rationally refute.
As my father said recently to me: “With great doubt, comes great enlightenment.”

[murex]

Yes, an athiest is not likely to gravitate to religion. Their beliefs will probably emerge slowly as a philosophy, and it may or may not become a spiritual philosophy.

[Kwan Yu]

murex said:

Yes, an athiest is not likely to gravitate to religion. Their beliefs will probably emerge slowly as a philosophy, and it may or may not become a spiritual philosophy.

Philosophy without spirit
is dead end

[Jupiter]

nickelfire said:

If an atheist is someone who has lost faith, he is someone who has been on the other side of the coin, he has seen both sides.

That's a big "if". I beleive that most people haven't evolved to really having true belief in the first place and are actually fluctuating between non-belief and a leaning toward atheism.
I think that the planet itself is moving toward a new belief a new spirituality .
Definitely a true atheist who gets religion is probably going to be as extreme on one side of the coin as the other . Same guy .

[nickelfire]

jupiter said:

That's a big "if". I beleive that most people haven't evolved to really having true belief in the first place and are actually fluctuating between non-belief and a leaning toward atheism.
I think that the planet itself is moving toward a new belief a new spirituality .
Definitely a true atheist who gets religion is probably going to be as extreme on one side of the coin as the other . Same guy .

I've no problem with what you're saying, I said so earlier and I quote: "I cannot comment on the potency of this new spirituality, but I’d imagine it might be practical and it might be powerful, a force his religious and atheistic predecessors would be hard pressed to rationally refute."
This could be what you're describing and I was only saying that anyone could arive at this evolved belief regardless of their past doctrines.

[murex]

I think people will become more aware that religions do little spiritually overall, and have negative aspects to them. People will eventually choose their own path to becoming spiritual- a personal path.

Enlightenment can't be bought at a church.

[atman]

I am pasting this into this post because I guess I just want to be sure that this is what nickel is referring to.

athe•ism
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist (from Greek atheos godless, not believing in the existence of gods, from a- 2a- + theos god) + -isme -ism -- more at THE-

1 a : disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b : the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity -- compare AGNOSTICISM
2 : godlessness especially in conduct : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS

I have trouble believing that anyone can take the position that the existence of GOD, or gods or deities can possibly depend on some individual's belief.

[MagnetMan]

New Agers use the word "Ontology" to describe the new spirituality.

There are literally thousands of sects practicng spirituality in hundreds of different ways. Ultimately there will be billions of different practices - for the simple reason that as adults, none of use will need teachers, priests , gurus, etc to show us the way.

Every person will find their own way and every view of God will be unique to them.

[nickelfire]

athe•ism
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist (from Greek atheos godless, not believing in the existence of gods, from a- 2a- + theos god) + -isme -ism -- more at THE-

1 a : disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b : the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity -- compare AGNOSTICISM

Yes, I'm referring to this notion.

2 : godlessness especially in conduct : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS

This one, for the sake of modernity, is not what I'm saying, the notion that a whole community acts wickedly is very primitive. And if all dictionaries have this translation then we either need to coin a new word, or demand an upgrade. ;D

I have trouble believing that anyone can take the position that the existence of GOD, or gods or deities can possibly depend on some individual's belief.

This is what I'm saying, we all need to come to our own answers, and rejecting anyone else's, be it naive or even destructive, is prejudice because most answers that mankind has come to usually are all the same in some ways.

[Tourniquet]

nickelfire said:

This is what I'm saying, we all need to come to our own answers, and rejecting anyone else's, be it naive or even destructive, is prejudice because most answers that mankind has come to usually are all the same in some ways.

I'm not specifying what my beliefs are but I have an issue with what you are saying here. I don't see why it would be prejudicial to reject another persons views... To not reject them would be to accept them and if you accept them than that makes them your views. Obviously I think my views are better than your views (hypothetically speaking)... if I thought yours were better I would adopt them as my own... why would I stick with second best? (To put it vulgarly) Seriously, semantics maybe... but how could one not reject another view and still retain their own? I'm not saying you can't be open in the beginning before you have considered something... but after analyzing you must either accept or reject, yeah?

[nickelfire]

I was really rushed when I wrote that last post; D , but what I’m trying to convey is that if someone’s views are naïve and worth harshly criticizing, then we should take a good look at other philosophies, ahem… religious ones... cough… cough… In this sense, I’d criticize Christianity as much as Islam or someone’s atheistic views because each are flawed, and each have incited division, and each are destructive, and I daresay that each have changed us in necessary ways, for good or bad. In that sense, all theology and philosophy is worthy of criticism, but to single one out would be silly. This is because in a very general sense, we’re all on this planet trying to live with ourselves and everyone around us, and the ways we’ve done so, thus far, are equally primitive in my eyes.
I’m sure this still isn’t terribly clear but if you understand what I’m saying than… you rule!

[Lasher]

jupiter said:

I think that the planet itself is moving toward a new belief a new spirituality .

Totally agree... like that guy Bianco MM posted about. It's like it's not a different shade anymore but a whole new pallette where all the old terms and rules are archaic and don't apply. Tha's where I wanna be

... Just thought I'd throw that in

[nickelfire]

I for one am sick of popular viewpoints, people are ruled by irrational fears, and fight each other for irrational reasons, why is it that we seek conflict where none is necessary? That probably deserves a new thread… Dibs!
Anyways, back on topic… If beliefs or non-beliefs can be agreed to be currently unethical, which one is worse? Atheism, Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism… others?
This should start a riot…

[Jupiter]

nickelfire said:

Anyways, back on topic… If beliefs or non-beliefs can be agreed to be currently unethical, which one is worse? Atheism, Protestantism, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism… others?
This should start a riot…

I for one am just not getting your point anymore on this nickelfire. This thread seems to have pretty well described why people feel one idea might be worse than another. You are entitled to your opinion but I am having a hard time figuring it out.
I think it almost goes without saying that we can all be more understanding and practice a better brand of tolerance in our daily lives, I just don't see how this is bring a greater relevance to that issue.
What exactly are you proposing a world where everyone is hailed as perfect and righteous regardless of conduct? Until we reach that evolutionary status as near perfecrt species I think we would all kill each other. Or do you want someone to point a finger at one of these and say one is worse than atheism?