I can see how my post could be interpreted in the manner you posted.
More explanation is needed.
The Creator created us all in His/Her image, so all of us hold within ourselves the goodness of the Creator. We all have the same capacity to love or to hate, to be compassionate or cruel. What we do is our choice, and our choice only.
However, spiritual people that I know look beyond physical death. They understand love and compassion is a path to spiritual growth, and spiritual growth brings greater opportunities to learn about the Creator. They don’t feel compelled, they don’t fear punishment, they are driven by curosity and desire to know more about who they are and what they are doing here and in the hereafter. They’re motivated to live honest, truthful lives in pursuit of a higher goal than the things of this physical earth.
Atheists do not have that motivation that reaches beyond the physical. They don’t believe in anything beyond the physical.
So what exactly happens after you die? Does everyone go to a hereafter existence? All in the same place? Does the activity that goes on there affect life on earth? Do you have a boss?
So far I have NP. I like the part that we do it out of wonder and a desire to know rather than fear of punishment or looking forward to reward. In that case we have much in common with atheist scientist and explorers. Even those that explore in social, emotional and psychological fields.
It started as a question which was responded to.
Have you read this thread? Obviously this is false. Insulting as well.
So you did, my mistake. So those who teach fear for their own gain, and those who accept that teaching for …um reasons I can’t understand, are only talking about God not seeking God?
Not really.
I’m sorry, but I think that statement is bullshit. I’m an atheist, and I am motivated by lots of things that aren’t physical…just because I do not believe that the grounds for things like love, altruism, compassion, evil, hate etc. are metaphysical, and instead are very much rooted in physical phenomena, does not mean the abstract concepts themselves are physical, or that they are any less of a motivator.
There’s no “seed” of love or hate planted in my mind, it arises out of experience and reason. Postulating that it’s because it’s a chip off the ol’ God-block adds nothing to the mix that’s necessary.
I don’t believe in a hereafter, but that does not mean I’m not interested in who I am and where I’m going in the world, now and in the future. You imply atheists lack the natural curiosity that’s a direct result of thinking, of caring about their place in the universe. That’s vaguely insulting, although I’m sure you don’t intend it to be.
The fact that someone’s “God-sense” can be set a-tingling by judicious application of electrodes or psychoactive chemicals was the final nail in the coffin for me. Clearly all the mystical experiences, NDEs and just that general spirit-buzz are the result of your own brain, doing its thing. If that makes you happy, that’s great. Doesn’t work for me.
They are seeking what they value. The aesthetic most valued by God is goodness. All who value it are one with God. Faith is not an intellectual declaration, but a moral decision.
Faith most certainly is an intellectual declaration. You are declaring that you believe in something based on wishes. Moral decisions are made without the declaration of faith all the time.
Not entirely on wishes. For many people it’s a belief born out of personal experiences that moved them. I think our choices are made based on what we believe in or as Liberal says, what we value. For some being moral may be valueing the approval of our parents or friends rather than some deeper commitment to principle.
Belief in God may be dictated by similar values. Sometimes people don’t question their spiritual beliefs because their desire for approval by their group is stronger than their desire for the truth. I’m not convinced faith is a moral decision but it’s an intereesting idea. In the examples I mentioned I might call it an emotional decision to at least declare faith.
**Lib ** would probably say they don’t really have faith. The approval they sought is their reward.
Lib I’m having a hard time understanding how you are useing the word aesthetic in this case. Could you elborate or offer a reading suggestion?
I take this to mean actual faith and not all the shody substitutes, yet I still don’t get it. I might say it is an emotional choice as well. We are moved by something we can’t really name or explain to choose certain things. To believe beyond what we have solid evidence for and to choose what words we prefer to express that belief. We choose certain actions because of our belief that the outcome of those choices {which we can’t really know} is better than the alternative choices. That is faith.
In those terms my faith in God {however I perceive that mystery} and someones faith in love, honor, or truth, seem almost identical.
I’m using it in the classical philosophical sense: an aesthetic is something that has value. Somewhere along the way — several times actually — I’ve laid out my view that goodness is an aesthetic, not an ethic, and is the aesthetic most valued by God. Since God is the facilitator of goodness, and God is love, love is the facilitation of goodness. Sin, as the obstruction of goodness, is the opposite of love. Morality, therefore, is not tied to ethics, but to aesthetics. And faith, then, is a moral evaluation.
Where do you get this information? The dictionary references beauty and good taste, but nothing about goodness. I couldn’t disagree with your interpretation more.
Even so, how does goodness = the laws of perception? In that goodness is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose there’s some truth to it. For instance…I am a firm believer that it is sometimes a good thing to abort a fetus. However, I know there are those who will say it can never be a good thing. I just don’t get the connection.
I am surprised you disagree with the statement: “Atheists do not have that motivation that reaches beyond the physical. They don’t believe in anything beyond the physical.”
If you are an Atheist and don’t believe anything exists beyond the physical how could you be motivated by something beyond the physical. I think the statement is accurate. We were talking here about life after death. I had already covered the emotions as being the same in all people.
There was no final nail either, no one has duplicated an NDE by electrical or chemical means. To the contrary, recent research findings show that NDEs happen after the brain has stopped functioning. Check the Pam Reynolds surgery.
But I won’t bore you further. Only to say that if science had any evidence, talking physical evidence, that consciousness was produced by the brain, I would be wanting to read all the material on it I could get. It’s my natural curosity to learn.
Where does it say “Atheist” = “materialist”? You may just be talking about life after death, but in the process you’re making broad statements about people’s motivations for their actions in this life, therefore emotions definitely come into it. If, as you say, these are the same for all people, then where is your God hiding?
Or an even more intriguing question: Why is your god hiding? Why would he make himself known to the materialist believers and remain unknown to the humblest of secular folks?
This is exactly what I’m trying to prevent. If I (and/or my representative government) takes no action to alleviate poverty and oppression world wide, then there is a greatly enhanced chance that the victims of poverty and oppression will turn to crime or violence to survive. If as many people as possible have their health, basic human rights, and the opportunity to become prosperous, then they are far less likely to break into my allegorical house to steal my hypothetical DVD player.
And you have a guarantee of life after death? At least I have some real life examples of people acting out of truly altruistic motives. What have you got?
Who ever said that’s how people are? I’m talking about how people should be. Atheists can be idealists, too. As to which philosophy is most reflected in the real world, I humbly point out that yours has been the dominant paradigm for the whole of human history, and it’s not done such a good job of eliminating war, poverty, prejudice, or reality television, has it? I don’t know for a fact that mine would be any better, but I can scarcely imagine it being much worse.