Pro: Agnosticism / Con: Atheism

[jgm1975]

The problem is that we live in a black-and-white world, where you are either one or the other, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, atheist or religious, etc. The Chinese used to refer to themselves as the "Middle Empire", meaning that they were not at the edges. Confucius and other Chinese philosophers refer to the need to always find the "Golden Mean", i.e. the middle ground, taking the best of both worlds. In the debate of Religion vs. Atheism, the same applies. People are one or the other, but they do not exploit the third way, i.e. a secular non-religious morality that believes in the existence of a Divine Spirit responsible for the things man can not explain, but without the trappings of religion. You can visit the following link if you want to know more about what I mean, but keep in mind that it is only my opinion:

http://www.geocities.com/jgm1975/Spirit.htm

[Crimson Glow]

Interesting read, and all things I've thought about for a long time. Your writing style looks a lot like mine when I'm putting something together as serious in nature as your piece in that link. But any way, a few things caught my attention.

Your comment about atheism. You mention that you don't care for it because it degrades humans to the level of animals by separating us from divinity. I can understand why the athiest outlook can be depressing, and a bleek one at best, but how does that make it less credible? If it's the truth, it's the truth. The fact that something would suck if it were true is not grounds to dismiss it. Now I am by no means an athiest, nor am I saying it is true, but what I'm getting at is I would hope one would require a better reason to disdain such a notion. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you wrote.

There were other things as well, but I don't want to get into them and turn this into another religious thread. We've got enough of those going. Poor Dusken has had a hard enough time keeping things on track.

[spiral]

The problem is that we live in a black-and-white world, where you are either one or the other, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, atheist or religious, etc. The Chinese used to refer to themselves as the "Middle Empire", meaning that they were not at the edges. Confucius and other Chinese philosophers refer to the need to always find the "Golden Mean", i.e. the middle ground, taking the best of both worlds. In the debate of Religion vs. Atheism, the same applies. People are one or the other, but they do not exploit the third way, i.e. a secular non-religious morality that believes in the existence of a Divine Spirit responsible for the things man can not explain, but without the trappings of religion. You can visit the following link if you want to know more about what I mean, but keep in mind that it is only my opinion:

http://www.geocities.com/jgm1975/Spirit.htm

(Maybe I misunderstood your stance) but I noticed that you seem to imply that God and spirituality need to coexist. I do not agree with this.

I also think that Desim is a religion of its own.


And...I agree with crimson regarding your comments on atheism.

[dusken]

The problem is that we live in a black-and-white world, where you are either one or the other, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, atheist or religious, etc. The Chinese used to refer to themselves as the "Middle Empire", meaning that they were not at the edges. Confucius and other Chinese philosophers refer to the need to always find the "Golden Mean", i.e. the middle ground, taking the best of both worlds. In the debate of Religion vs. Atheism, the same applies. People are one or the other, but they do not exploit the third way, i.e. a secular non-religious morality that believes in the existence of a Divine Spirit responsible for the things man can not explain, but without the trappings of religion. You can visit the following link if you want to know more about what I mean, but keep in mind that it is only my opinion:

http://www.geocities.com/jgm1975/Spirit.htm

I am sure you do understand that Agnosticism is that middle ground and by saying, "Therefore I see two main trends in the world today: followers of a specific religion, and Atheists (implicit or explicit)," you are displacing its value in such a discussion.

The problem I have with Atheists is that they degrade humans, since by removing any relationship with the Divine they reduce them to the level of animals.

I have an issue with Atheism as well, but your reason has two flaws for me. One, (essentially what Crimson Glow stated) is that you are trying to defeat a concept's credibility using an emotional and/or sentimental reaction, which are incredible in the context of philosophical discussion. Secondly, you say that it separates us from the divine but Atheism is a comment about whether that divinity exists. This argument would essentially be: "You don't believe in God but that does not make sense because God exists and you don't believe it." Also, effecting a negative connotation upon the idea of being an animal is arrogance and not an argument.

I dismiss Atheism because what I know of it makes it appear to be illogical in the same way that religion is illogical.

Spirituality is the invisible reality that permeates and transcends our physical world and surroundings. It is the force, energy or Spirit that is responsible for such things as love, destiny, fate, luck, life, gravity, etc.

Thus Atheists, by virtue of a sheer absence of spirituality, fail to earn any slight admiration from myself.

First off, if you are suggesting that an Atheist cannot love, you are being unfair and presumptuous and as cold as you claim the Atheistic outlook is. And, keep in mind that religion is not a prerequisite for the appreciation of any of the arts.

Now...spirituality. What spirituality entails is not concrete. Its is a vague term that is dependant upon opinion and has not true definition and I have mentioned this in my first post about the use of "God" or "gods." Any argument that uses these words is by its very nature illogical and is dependant upon language and individual preception of a concept. Therefore, attempting to discredit an individual or group of individuals with a certain belief based on their alleged lack of spirituality is meaningless. They may have a completely different opinion as to what spirituality is and you cannot argue it; you can only have a different opinion.


Just for the phuck of it...

I can understand why the athiest outlook can be depressing, and a bleek one at best...

That is not true for everyone. I have met Atheists that are not only astounded but excited about their view of the universe. It is a matter of character.

[jgm1975]

I am pleasantly surprised at the volume of the posts. I am disappointed that many people in other forums do not seem to pay attention to such intellectual topics, so this is a good debate. While I take time to go through the various comments (and I will need plenty of it), here are some quick thoughts:

- Indeed Atheism is as much a credible philosophy as any other. Philosophies always debate one another, so there is nothing unusual here.

- I disagree with the notion that Deism is a religion. Deism is a philosophy, not a religion. If Deism takes religious forms, than it ceases to be Deism, but becomes instead a religion or a cult.

- Yes I may take a intense view against Atheism. There are good Atheists who may not believe in God but who practice good. But there are also Atheists who dismiss those who believe in spiritual existence as lunatics, dreamers and out-of-touch, and I have a problem with them. Worse, they portray those who believe in God as being responsible for so many wars and deaths around the world. True, religions have caused a lot of havoc and death, but so have Atheists with the Russian and French revolutions with their atheistic principles, and Communist regimes around the world. There is plenty of guilt to go around, so I resent when some Atheists, though not all, portray non-Atheists as blood-thirsty, lunatics or both.

- "you seem to imply that God and spirituality need to coexist. I do not agree with this." Neither do I, so I hope I am not implying it. "God" is just a word pointing to something greater that sometimes humans can not understand. This unknown entity can be referred to as "God", "Heaven", "spirituality" or anything else. Unfortunately religion is famous for such pointless semantics.

[Crimson Glow]

That is not true for everyone. I have met Atheists that are not only astounded but excited about their view of the universe. It is a matter of character.

Oh I agree, sir. So have I. I think the whole concept that morality and vitality are dependant on spirituality is silly for the very reason you stated. I was merely saying that even in the worst case scenerio, it still doesn't eradicate the prospect of it's actuality.


JGM - But it seems like you're dislike for atheists revolves around a handful of extremists. It would be like saying someone became athiest only because they could no longer tolerate the brutality and force with which religion pushes rules and labeling onto its respective followers, and that he/she could have no repsect for any of its followers due to this. I would venture to say there are a hell of a lot more athiests who go about their lives without you even realizing they are one, then there are those who show such disdain towards the religious.