Atheism 2.0

by Qcmbr 384 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Twitch

  So if we don't have religion or the guiding moral structure of religion, would mankind turn directly into destructive anarchy ?

  I doubt it. There are people and cultures that are not guided by religion and they seem alright to me.

  What would happen to mankind if all religions right now were to be dismantled and band altogether ?

  There'd be a lot of pissed off religious nutjobs loading up on Wild Turkey and hollow points? More than likely. The more passive would go underground. Both would dig in and not let go of their beliefs. Would you?
• 

  N.drew

  So if we don't have religion or the guiding moral structure of religion, would mankind turn directly into destructive anarchy ?

  China the government doesn't have religion and China seems to be the opposite of anarchy.
• 

  thetrueone

  Oh no doubt the guns would come out Twitch.

  But if the authorities did was take away people's bibles or whatever religious document they had, would they break their own

  set moral code of not to kill their fellow man ?

  Most likely I would say yes.
• 

  thetrueone

  Good point N drew
• 

  N.drew

  Thank you!
• 

  thetrueone

  A consortium of modern social consciousness could work, perhaps even better than ones structured around the social

  moral standards which were developed thousands of years ago, by ancient civilizations.

  Not to pick on one singular religious faith mind you.
• 

  soft+gentle

  hi qcmbr

  in reply to your opening post here is something you and your wife may enjoy. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/classics-play/#PROG

  Even if you can't make it to this particular play (and the workshops and talks about it) these classical societies, in tandem with UCL, provide some interesting resources for exploring relevant subjects to today's world.

  Hippolytus is an excellent play for exploring a fundamentalist mind when it clashes with desire imo.
• 

  Terry

  interesting thread, read the first page...marking to read the rest later.
  
  Haven't read any further but your comment on the first page Terry got me thinking. To be atheist...the way you have described it does sound relatively closed minded. I had never thought about it being the other end of the spectrum before...but I have to agree.
  
  Once we close our minds off to possibilities...we are simply closing our minds...I don't see any benefit in doing that.

  Well, at least THE TWO OF US can stay on topic...

  When I first came to this Discussion Board almost seven years ago I don't know if I thought I was Atheist or Agnostic or just angry.

  I stuck my toe in both ponds from time to time.

  But--RANDY WATTERS, bless his pea-pickin' soul--talked some sense into me.

  How?

  He convinced me that my anger with the Watchtower Society does not HELP OTHER PEOPLE as much as it tears down more than it builds up.

  From that time forward (with some sputters) I recognized that being an Angry Atheist is self-indulgent snobbery at worst and close-minded iconoclasm at the least.

  Honesty requires that we acknowledge we DON'T KNOW.

  Humility is a virtue because it allows personal growth.

  We can't expect JW's to examine their beliefs if we attack them. They will automatically defend. We get JW's to examine their beliefs by getting them curious, skeptical and neutral.
• 

  cofty

  Honesty requires that we acknowledge we DON'T KNOW

  But I do know Terry, there is no evidence for god. I'm not angry, snobby or close-minded nor do I lack humility.

  Theism is vaccuous. If some new evidence ever becomes available I will be all ears.

  Qcmbr did not start this thread to debate the semantics of atheism v agnosticism. You took the thread off topic on page 1.

  The question of what it means to be an atheist/agnostic/skeptic/humanist whatever is an interesting one that I would love to discuss further. Unfortuately its impossible with theists constantly waffling about how the spirits told them how right they are.
• 

  Qcmbr

  S&G - thanks for link.

  Terry - I think maybe I can see that it is not really possible to talk about 'knowing' in an essentialist Platonic sense(i.e. the bed you sleep in is an approximation of the perfect bed etc.) but surely we've moved beyond that strictness and recognised that absolutes are human inventions not markers of reality (for example I will define absolute white differently to the next person since whiteness is a perception in my head however, some scientific body or some artistic group may agree on a scientific wavelength distrubution or recipe of pigments that is 'absolute white'.) Thus when we talk about the supernatural it is legally correct to say we cannot know if a god exists however, we MUST also agree that the definition of god is a totally human constructed idea (ants and slime don't have the faculty for faith or imagination ) and therefore without humans the very concept of god also ceases.

  To talk solely in legal terms with unchanging , council agreed definitions for meaning is at once totalitarian (the very thing you seem to be preaching against) - you will accept that this word means this and only this - and also utterly unworkable since words are an approximation of experienced thought not platonic essensialism (when I think of a rabbit I do not hold a perfect rabbit concept and it is open to further refinement and understanding from geneticists and pet shops.) The debate about concepts is used as a smoke screen, imo, to avoid asking what does it mean to be 'x'. This is the root of my quandry.

  As a Mormon it was relatively clear what the church wanted my affiliation to mean (e.g. happy face regardless of what was really happening, ten percent cash cow and underwear purchaser) whereas as an atheist I realise that I've dashed to freedom with no idea how to spend that freedom and I wonder whether I've lost more (structure, sociality, family cohesion and life focus) than I've gained (of course that realisation is a step in the right direction!) I'm less interested (though it is interesting) in the semantics as much as I am with the practicals. I want to be proud of being an atheist because I want it to have enriched my - and my family's - life. In other words I wish to define my atheism. The question is also - is there anything I can do know as an atheist that I couldn't do as a Mormon (superficial knicker questions aside :) ) in other words - from a purely practical pov has my capacity really increased.

  Intellectually I'm happy - I'm not heading back. Just curious about where I go now.