Atheists celebrate life.
Theists celebrate death.
I prefer the former.
Jack
Hey this could be a cool signature.
I think I’ll use it.
Yes, use the sig, and broadcast the world your simplistic views about the faithful and life itself.
I thought sloganeering is not a valid form of argument in GD. The readers here certainly do not take it much stock of what is essentially a slogan as argument, especialy if the writer is one of the faithful. If I were to say that “Athieists have faith that there no faith is worth having,” I expect to be bombarded with vitrolic fervor.
What about the holidays many of the faithful celebrate? Some would take it a step further and declare that everyday is a day worth celebrating. Many who treat death as not a be-all and end to all, but a beginning of a new journey, gives many faithful a reason to cope with death and to carry on with their lives.
Well, I ask a question: if athiests have no religious-based holiday rituals so to speak, then what is worthy of celebration and commemerating?
That’s a sweeping generalization, and an insulting one to boot. For one example, Judaism is generally thought of as being a religion that focusses on the here-and-now rather than the hereafter, although clearly that differs from sect to sect and from one historical period to another. The ancient Egyptians focussed on death only to the extent that they celebrated life, and wanted to use the proper rituals to ensure its continuation after death. (Although, once again, it’s hard to generalize. The Ancient Egyptian religion was polytheistic most of the time, but atheistic at other times.) In Japan, polytheistic Shinto is generally considered to be the religion of life, while atheistic Buddhism is associated with death. As they say, “You’re born a Shintoist and buried a Buddhist.”
In your own experience, you should have met several Christians on the SDMB whose faith reflects a celebration of life and a living relationship with God, rather than a concern with ensuring one’s place in the afterlife.
-Ben
Dude- are you going to answer my questions?
A few quotes from the FAQ:
**
Q6. All this talk is fine and well, but everybody knows that atheists are less moral than theists.
A hundred years ago, “everybody knew” that Catholic nunneries were really whorehouses (and, as proof, “survivor stories” were published which were very similar to the lies of Mike Warnke.) Two thousand years ago, “everybody knew” that Christians were killing babies and drinking their blood at Eucharist. “Everybody knows” has always been the rallying cry of prejudice. For what it’s worth, when I was in high school I was taught that “everybody knows” atheists are less moral than theists. When I got to college and actually met some atheists firsthand, I found that they were every bit as moral (and in some cases much more so) than the Christians I had known back home. One study showed that “less religious” people are only marginally less moral than “very religious” people. While the study deals with degree of religiosity rather than atheism vs. theism (some atheists might consider themselves “very religious,” while the bulk of the “less religious” crowd was most likely composed of non-fervent Christians) it nonetheless makes an important point.
**
Q3. Ok, then, what sort of morality can exist without God?
In light of what I said above, why don’t you ask a theist? Personally, I think that morality is based in empathy. Through empathy, I can understand that other people have joys and sorrows which are just as important as my own, and thus I will be led to treat them with the same respect with which I wish to be treated myself. Sound familiar? This, of course, is only one basis for atheistic morality. Just as theists disagree about what the best sort of morality is, atheists can (and do) disagree as well."
Q9. Life cannot have meaning in a random universe without God.
This is a bit like saying that a painting cannot be beautiful unless it contains red paint. Meaning is a subjective and highly personal issue- the meaning of a person’s life is whatever that person finds to be meaningful. The existence of God, on the other hand, is an objective question. One cannot say that the existence of God automatically makes life meaningful any more than one can paint a painting that everyone on earth is guaranteed to find beautiful. Personally, even as a Christian I found the meaning of life to lie in improving the quality of other people’s lives, and found the idea of doing what God said simply because he said so (rather than because it served some purposeful goal) to be meaningless.
I find that there is a great deal of arrogance in the assertion that life cannot have meaning if God does not exist. Imagine, if you will, that you are standing in an art museum admiring a painting. Someone walks up to you and tells you, quite vehemently, that no one could possibly like that painting. He then recites a number of elaborate arguments about art history and concludes that while you might think that you find the painting to be beautiful, you are, in fact, quite mistaken- he knows that in reality you find it to be ugly, whether you know it or not.
**
I didn’t say it was your intent. Can you understand that I might find it frustrating to hear you ask questions which were already answered in the FAQ? I mean, doesn’t that kind of defeat the purpose of writing a FAQ in the first place?
**
Then why not ask me to post the FAQ here in its entirety?
**
That would have been clearer had you asked, “Do you still agree with the answer you gave to question #3?” rather than just re-asking question #3.
**
Here’s the actual quote which Beeblebrox took from the letter(s) section:
‘“Be careful, however, in how you describe my FAQ. It is not “what I believe” except in the sense that I believe everything I write. The FAQ is meant as a debunking of certain arguments made by anti-atheist writers, and as such only represents a small slice of my religious beliefs.”’
Beeblebrox was criticising me for making a “vanity thread” focussing on specific arguments, rather than making a “non-vanity thread” that was all about my religious beliefs in general. So far as I can tell, he didn’t say that the opinions in the FAQ weren’t necessarily my own, and if he had, he would clearly have been incorrect to do so.
Moreover, in the FAQ itself I make it explicitly clear that I am speaking of my own beliefs: " Personally, I think…" “For what it’s worth, when I was in high school…” “Personally, even as a Christian I found…”
I’m a little troubled by the fact that you’d describe Beeblebrox as “wise.” I felt that his post wasn’t worth replying to, because I assumed no one could possibly take it seriously. Do you think I’ve given anyone reason to believe that this is a “vanity thread”? (Whatever that is!)
As you can see above, much of your questions were indeed discussed in so many words.
It seems to me that the mix-up came from the fact that you had some questions (you wanted more detail, you wanted to know if my opinions had changed, etc.) and just articulated them in a way that made it look like you were asking questions I had already covered. Hence, I assumed that you, like HubZilla, hadn’t read the FAQ. Now that we’ve cleared that up and I’ve quoted the relevant portions of the FAQ, feel free to ask me for clarification on anything that’s still unclear.
To clarify a few of your questions which weren’t explicitly spelled out in the FAQ:
Yes, I’m an atheist. Yes, I still agree with the FAQ. The meaning I find in life is personal, and I don’t want to discuss it too much here, although I’m willing to discuss the matter further in general terms. As for the question of whether the assumption that life is meaningless is an incentive to behave immorally, you’ll have to ask someone who thinks that life is meaningless. Perhaps sleeptrainer?
-Ben
Thank you. Altho I find that some of your quotes do not answer my questions explicitly, combined with your other comments you came close. I do not have the time here to re-ask the not explicitly answered portions. I do think that YOU think you have answered the questions. 
I do not beleive “that life cannot have meaning without God” (altho I think it is easier to find said meaning with spiritual awareness/awakening). But- I am curious about YOUR meaning of life. OK, true-it is personal, but you started this…
I do agree that the OP did not seem to have a “debateable proposition”- so I am trying to clarify one.
Please name one religion where death is not part of the equation or even the “reward” and I will gladly drop the signature. Yes it is a simple statement, but the statement rings true.
As an atheist life is more valuable than death and I intend to live my life at the fullest without wasting a single moment worshipping some fantastic being or place. However, as an atheist I have had very bad experiences with people wanting to “save my soul”.
I have been harassed and abused for simply accepting the truth. I have no desire to insult anyone, the fact is religion is about what comes after so when I state that religion celebrates death, I am not making things up.
As for your question, you don’t need religion to celebrate or commemorate, why do think you need religion for this?
One thing I have learnt from the SDMB is that Judaism is more than a religion, it is also an ethnic group. There have been several threads on Judaism as a religion or ethnic group on this board, which I’m sure you can look up. I do not wish to start another debate on that matter.
Regarding the ancient Egyptians, I think you have answered the question yourself, death was a major factor regardless of the reason.
In WWII, kamikaze pilots conducted suicidal attacks for the living God emperor. Death in battle was an ultimate honor. Shinto certainly celebrated death over life.
**
So if a religion has anything to do with death, then it proves that theists “celebrate” death?
By that token, you must at least drop the “atheists celebrate life” from your .sig. I’ve shown you an atheistic religion in which death is a major part of the equation.
**
From what I understand, the Inuit don’t believe in the afterlife as a “reward.” Some people go to better places than others, but the assignment isn’t based on belief or behavior. (It is instead, from what I understand, based on such factors as the manner of death.)
**
What does this have to do with anything? We’re talking about whether all theists celebrate death, not about whether some theists have acted like jerks.
**
Actually, you said theists celebrate death, not that “religion” in general, including atheistic religions, does.
**
They believe in God, don’t they? And that means they are theists, does it not?
I was speaking of the way Shinto is viewed in modern Japan. It seems to me that you’ve decided that your .sig is far too clever to give up, so you’re going to rig the game so that no one can possibly prove it wrong:
-
if a religion has anything to do with death, then it counts as celebrating death.
-
if a group of theists don’t celebrate death and don’t even believe in an afterlife, they don’t count as theists because their “religion” is also an ethnic group
-
if a religion ever celebrated death, then it can never be counted as a religion that celebrates life, no matter how much it has changed.
-Ben
Yes. Every religion I know of has to do with what comes after.
Now we are looking at definitions. When I revealed to Buddhist friend that I was an atheist, he started to explain the values of Buddhism, he gave me a couple of books and kept bugging me to come to a Buddhist temple with him. Finally I explained that I was not shopping and he finally stopped. The point is, although Buddhism does not necessarily have a supreme being, I think the definition of atheism in most peoples view means the lack of all religion, including Buddhism. So in my signature you can read atheism to mean no religion.
So death is a factor in the Inuit belief system. This doesn’t really prove your point.
You are right. I apologize for bringing this up. Please ignore it.
Again, I guess it’s a matter of definition. I agree with you on the literal meaning, but I think the perception in general of atheism versus theism is non-religion versus religion.
Yes, my argument exactly, yet on this very board it has been explained to me that Judaism is more than a religion. Like I said, this is a different debate, which I don’t necessarily wish to pursue.
Having lived in Japan for 12+ years, I can tell you that Shinto as a religion has lost popularity. In fact, Shinto is now more of a tradition than a religion. No Japanese I know “practice” Shinto. As a matter of fact, I have met more atheists in Japan than in any other country.
Not at all, I truly appreciate your views on this subject and am enjoying our debate.
I do take your points seriously and try to see your angle. So far, you have yet to convince me that I am wrong.
I am a history buff, from what I can tell, all religion was a direct response to dealing with death. This is the central focus point of all religion. So far you have not convinced me otherwise.
In your second point, you are obviously referring to Judaism. I am not denying that it is a religion rather than an ethnic group, my point is that many Jews have explained that it is both. As for the religious aspect of Judaism, death is still a central focus point of that religion.
Your last point you mention change. In what religion has the focus on death changed?
I would be interested to know, if you could provide some evidence of this.
Jack
*My response is from the Judeo-Christian perspective, since this is the only religion I feel I know well enough to make claims for.
I think it’s possible that the Judaic and Christian religions developed as a response to dealing with death, but I don’t really consider that the probable reason. Taking the Bible at face value, the Old Testament doesn’t really deal much with the issue of what happens after death; it explains to some extent why death occurs (i.e., the deliberate choice of man to disobey God, resulting in mortality and the corruption of the world; also, a New Testament quote by Jesus Christ expands on this idea, stating that “the wages of sin is death”). The OT deals very much with what happens during life, however, and specifically, how that life is to be lived; this is demonstrated both in express laws and by the example of the people who lived their lives (for example, reading the book of Kings, it is repeated over and over that such-and-such a king did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, or that a handful of others did what was good. The consequences of their actions, it seems to me, were sometimes immediate and sometimes not, but in neither case did it really pertain to what happened after they died.
As far as Christianity goes, the concept of Heaven and hell are definitely more prevalent there, but another concept that I think is more important and more “central” to the idea is the concept of love for God and for men. Heaven is presented as being important, but I would say not as the motive for life or why people should do good (love being the actual desired motivation).
“If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.” 1 Corinthians 13:3 NRSV (That entire chapter deals with the significance of love.)
“He said to him [a lawyer of the Pharisees], ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matthew 22:37-40 NRSV
“If ye love Me, keep My commandments.” John 14:15 KJV
Like I said before, it’s possible that the religion did develop as a way to “celebrate death,” but I would disagree with the idea that death and what comes after is the primary focus. It may be what we dwell on the most, but I believe that Heaven is not really meant as a reward so much as it is a justification; those who are righteous go to Heaven because they belong there, not because it is a perk for being a good person in this life or an opiate for suffering. And while the focus of the religion in many believers’ lives may be shifted off love for God and onto the pleasures of Heaven (the Bible does mention that it will be pleasurable), what the believers do or do not focus on has no relevance to what the absolute message of either religion actually is.