A discourse on Atheism (not a religious debate)

[Darcy88]

Nice way of putting that. I agree.

---------------------

Although this thread is about atheism, it keeps going back to religion and then a criticism or defense of religion. What I am wondering is if atheism has any sort of specific practice that helps the atheist live a good life, specifically, how do atheists avoid fighting within their own families? In other words, I'm trying to find out if atheism has anything positive to offer or if all it has is a critique of what other people want to believe in.

Now I can see the sort of things that some atheists actually practice--at least the vocal ones. Here are two things that I see atheists practice:

(1) They tend to practice self-righteousness when it comes to other people's spirituality.

(2) They tend to refuse to forgive religious people because, I suspect, that would defuse the first practice.

Now, I'm not saying religious people are any better, but neither of these habits or practices seem like something that would make an atheist's family life joyful. When tensions arise in the family, I can see the self-righteousness and unforgiving attitude get directed at a spouse, parent, child or other close relative.

Well, since we aren't under the impression that women were made from our rib for the purpose of being our helper, since we don't ascribe to the doctrine of male headship, I'd suspect most atheist marriages are based upon terms of equality in contrast with many Christian/Muslim ones.

The only difference between a moral atheist and a moral theist is that the atheist is moral for the sake of being moral, not because he or she has been ordered to do so under threat of eternal damnation.

Research secular humanism.

[YesNo]

Well, since we aren't under the impression that women were made from our rib for the purpose of being our helper, since we don't ascribe to the doctrine of male headship, I'd suspect most atheist marriages are based upon terms of equality in contrast with many Christian/Muslim ones.

The only difference between a moral atheist and a moral theist is that the atheist is moral for the sake of being moral, not because he or she has been ordered to do so under threat of eternal damnation.

Research secular humanism.

So there is no fighting in families with atheists because their ideas keep them from fighting? They all live peacefully together.

[Darcy88]

So there is no fighting in families with atheists because their ideas keep them from fighting? They all live peacefully together.

I doubt there's any more or less fighting in atheist households than religious ones. In my experience the best and worst people can belong to either side.

[BienvenuJDC]

Well, since we aren't under the impression that women were made from our rib for the purpose of being our helper, since we don't ascribe to the doctrine of male headship, I'd suspect most atheist marriages are based upon terms of equality in contrast with many Christian/Muslim ones.

The only difference between a moral atheist and a moral theist is that the atheist is moral for the sake of being moral, not because he or she has been ordered to do so under threat of eternal damnation.

Research secular humanism.

You shouldn't assume that a Christian is moral ONLY because he/she is ORDERED to be. There are many Christians that serve God because of love, not because of any threat.

[Varenne Rodin]

You shouldn't assume that a Christian is moral ONLY because he/she is ORDERED to be. There are many Christians that serve God because of love, not because of any threat.

The problem with that is the "serve" part. Master/slave relationship. A dog loves its master no matter what the master does. The Christian master doesn't seem to care much about what happens to his dogs.

[JuniperWoolf]

So there is no fighting in families with atheists because their ideas keep them from fighting? They all live peacefully together.

Nope, there's fighting. There's fighting in EVERY family, except for perhaps the very un-fulfilled ones who just don't give a **** anymore.

What's with your aversion to family squabbles? If both partners are equal, and they have an idea which differs from that of their partner, both should feel free to express their point. To me, that seems a hell of a lot healthier than one person putting their head down, "yes, you're right dear, of course..." (which seems to be the Christian solution to all family matters from what I've read in the bible and from parable spinners such as Hans Christian Anderson). Argument is essential to arriving at a compromise, or to finding the most effective solution to a problem which is affecting the entire family. In fact, I've read that families in which never ever fight are more likely fo feel unfulfilled and file for divorce, although I'll have to root out where that came from. I think it was a textbook.

Then of course there's the issue of human nature. I don't think that it's in our nature to meekly put our heads down and do whatever another person tells us to do, especially when that person is suggesting something which seems profoundly stupid and which will affect our entire lives and our families. The Christian wives that I know aren't meek little sock puppets. To suggest so, or to suggest that they SHOULD be or else they're "obviously not taking their religion very seriously", is somewhat insulting.

[YesNo]

Generally, I look at service in a positive light, however, I suppose it all depends on who or what one is serving. If one is a Christian serving Jesus or a Hindu serving Rama, I think that service is positive. Love, not any threat, is what drives the morality as BienvenuJDC points out.

If one is serving oneself, pursuing transitory pleasure, it is very easy to get caught up serving greed, lust or anger. That service I would consider negative.

[YesNo]

Nope, there's fighting. There's fighting in EVERY family, except for perhaps the very un-fulfilled ones who just don't give a **** anymore.

What's with your aversion to family squabbles? If both partners are equal, and they have an idea which differs from that of their partner, both should feel free to express their point. To me, that seems a hell of a lot healthier than one person putting their head down, "yes, you're right dear, of course..." (which seems to be the Christian solution to all family matters from what I've read in the bible and from parable spinners such as Hans Christian Anderson). Argument is essential to arriving at a compromise, or to finding the most effective solution to a problem which is affecting the entire family. In fact, I've read that families in which never ever fight are more likely fo feel unfulfilled and file for divorce, although I'll have to root out where that came from. I think it was a textbook.

Then of course there's the issue of human nature. I don't think that it's in our nature to meekly put our heads down and do whatever another person tells us to do, especially when that person is suggesting something which seems profoundly stupid and which will affect our entire lives and our families. The Christian wives that I know aren't meek little sock puppets. To suggest so, or to suggest that they SHOULD be, is somewhat insulting.

I'm more interested in what atheists do than Christians since this thread is about atheism. You seem to justify family fighting as healthy, but I'm not so sure. I'd be interested in any research you might come up with.

[JuniperWoolf]

Love, not any threat, is what drives the morality as BienvenuJDC points out.

Yes - love for one's partner, love for one's children and love for one's fellow man, NOT love for one's invisible friend.

You seem to justify family fighting as healthy, but I'm not so sure. I'd be interested in any research you might come up with.

Ugh. Sure, but I wish that you'd do it yourself because research is tedious and I've already learned about one vs. two-sided relationships and the strenght of each accordingly in my first year. To go back and root through the mountain of family hostility research in order to find specific examples which pertain to this subject for the sake of a stupid internet debate doesn't sound like a good time.

Here, go nuts:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/

Also, please address the rest of my post and not just the part you've put in bold.

[JuniperWoolf]

In example, if God exists - an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being - then it is a good thing to reverence him. But if you don't believe in him, you can't do so.

...and if he doesn't exist then you're wasting a lot of your life literally worshipping something that isn't real, and if he DOES exist and honestly does strongly want people to worship him or else he'll send them to a place where they'll be tortured for all eternity, then he sounds more like a psychopathic narcissist than a benevolent diety and I'd really rather not. If that's the case than I'll take the torture, thank you. Better that than being a forced sycophant.

However, I very strongly doubt that if there is a god(s), that it(they) actually care about whether or not humans revere it(them). Why would it(they)?

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm more interested in what atheists do than Christians since this thread is about atheism. You seem to justify family fighting as healthy, but I'm not so sure. I'd be interested in any research you might come up with.

Atheists aren't part of a group, we're individuals. We don't have some specific doctrine or moral code. I think when a person is an atheist, it seems important to make the best of the life they have (and all of the wonderful things that go along with that), because it's viewed as the only life there is unless and/or until we find out otherwise.

[cafolini]

Hey, you guys. God is going to come at night and tickle your feet while you are sleeping. Then you'll see a good joke for the first time.

[JuniperWoolf]

Atheists aren't part of a group, we're individuals. We don't have some specific doctrine or moral code.

I thought that was obvious, but now that I look back that does seem to be what he's asking for, doesn't it?

I guess I'll just pull out my atheist hand manual and check under "family welfare."

[Varenne Rodin]

I thought that was obvious, but now that I look back that does seem to be what he's asking for, doesn't it?

I guess I'll just pull out my atheist hand manual and check under "family welfare."

Hahaha. Just don't reveal the secret handshake. We have to keep our sect secure.

Seriously, what do human beings like? Some of us like to be hugged, we like affection, music, art, books (pick your pleasure). We like mutual respect. What do we not like? We don't like being hurt or judged harshly for our genetics. It's not that difficult to figure out how to behave. I've been a Christian and an atheist, and I stress a lot less as an atheist. Things are less confusing for me. Be good to people, be good to yourself. That's all. No worries about big brother watching my every move (if he is watching he's a bit pervy). I just don't care about the superfluous junk that people get all tense over. I don't care about it until someone tries to force me to agree to their "god's" standards (how can they know?) for what is good and bad. It's not necessary.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't buy the "atheists aren't a group" thing. Of course we are. If atheists weren't a part of a group, there wouldn't be a need for an atheist label. I think it would be more accurate to say that atheists aren't an established community, though I still think that's easily arguable.