![Why do atheists care. [rhet]](/img/uisvg/forum-heading/spirituality.svg){kind=icon}
Originally posted by josephwOK, just to clarify although you now do not wish to call it persecution when we inhibit or otherwise use force against another because we don't agree or have an opposing world view, do you feel such action is morally wrong (even though it is not to be called 'persecution'😉?
Persecution, as related to spiritual "Truth", is only persecution when it is against the one who knows "The Truth", and tries to live their life according to that "Truth". Strictly speaking. While persecution may exist against those that believe something other than "The Truth", it is only persecution in the strictest sense when it is against those who believe "The Truth".
What is the real reason behind your desire to define the word 'persecution' to only apply to a certain subset? Do you feel it has moral implications?
The problem with the treatment of this question in the O.P. is that it's a negative way of caring. The question being answered is: "Why care that others believe in Gods?". So we have an expression of atheism in opposition to theism but not for itself. It implies that if there were no theists there would also be no atheists. However the converse is hardly true. Having been told about or, more likely, brought up into a religion a theist would in the first place define their beliefs in terms of the focus of their religion's belief. So for atheism to be something not purely reactive there has to be something to care about.
In the old Pagan religions idols formed the focus for the belief, with the idols proxies for various gods that represent natural forces. In Christianity the idols have more or less gone and there is a more or less unified God acting as the focus of belief. In Christianity the focus tends to be towards Jesus, the human part of the Christian God, whereas the Father and Holy Spirit aspects are rather more abstract. For there to be any kind of focus of belief for atheism it would have to be to an abstract concept such as "The Truth" and even then I doubt you'd find much agreement from atheists that there is any kind of focus of belief.
In the absence of a focus of belief I'm left wondering what a spiritual life is for an atheist.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAtheism isn't a religion. It is purely reactive. The only time I ever say I am atheist or consider myself atheist is in reaction to a theist. If there were no theists then everyone would be atheist but it would be of as little consequence as the fact that everyone is an afairyist (well most of us anyway).
So for atheism to be something not purely reactive there has to be something to care about.
In the absence of a focus of belief I'm left wondering what a spiritual life is for an atheist.
That all depends on what you mean by 'spiritual life'. I think the biggest error you are making is to think that a persons spiritual life would be tied to being atheist or that it is reasonable to group atheists together when discussing spiritual life. I think you will find that there are a whole variety of beliefs or spiritual lives that do not depend on a belief in a god/gods. Various Chinese beliefs for example include ancestral worship but are not theistic in nature.
My own understanding and reliance on science is as far as I know no different from that of other members of my family who are all Christian.
-Removed-Except that he didn't do that. If you think he did, then provide more than an accusation, explain how you think he did.
Your use of ISIS is a poor example to defend the post. The OP uses the term "Christians". ISIS are clearly a distinct subset within a larger group.
My uses of ISIS clearly used the term Muslim. Go back and read the post.
It's interesting how your usual cognitive incisiveness seems to lose its edge when Christianity or Christians are being criticised.
It is interesting how you see red and can't seem to think straight whenever you hold a conversation with me. If my cognitive incisiveness has lost its edge, please demonstrate that it has. Quote each of his sentences and explain in detail where you think he is doing what you claim and not what I claim.
-Removed-Where did you get the idea that anyone in this thread generalized at all based on one example? You have it completely back to front.
He made a statement. It was general, but did not apply to all Christians. He gave an example. The generalization was not based on the example. The example was used merely to illustrate the generalization.
If I was writing a chemistry book and I said that 'exothermic reactions produce heat', for example the burning of hydrogen in oxygen. Would you chip in and say "But you are generalizing based on one example, how can you reasonably claim that all exothermic reactions produce heat based on one example!"
[edit]Or to give a closer analogy, suppose someone said "many birds can fly, for example the Eagle". Would you say "but you are generalizing based on one example!".
"Theists ... often ask why atheists should care about what they believe, and why they should care about how they act. "
Why should an atheist believe anything at all, one may as well ask. Atheists are human. Humans observe the world they live in and form hypotheses about the world they live in; such hypotheses are part of what helps them to implement goal-directed activities which contribute to survival and flourishing. This is human nature, it is not peculiar to the having or the not having of any specific beliefs about God or religion.
The ones who did not care about their actions did not survive long enough to pass on their faulty genes. We are the inheritors of those who did care.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't think ancestor worship is really in a different category from theism. I'm not asking for a spiritual life to be tied to their atheism, I'm asking what it means for an atheist to have a spiritual life.
Atheism isn't a religion. It is purely reactive. The only time I ever say I am atheist or consider myself atheist is in reaction to a theist. If there were no theists then everyone would be atheist but it would be of as little consequence as the fact that everyone is an afairyist (well most of us anyway).
[b]In the absence of a focus of belief I'm left ...[text shortened]... is as far as I know no different from that of other members of my family who are all Christian.
-Removed-Well so far we have I think four of us that say no, there is no such generalization in the OP, and one of you that claims to be able to see it. Don't you think it possible that it is you that is seeing what is not there and not everybody else that is wrong?
I notice you still haven't dissected the sentences in which you claim such a generalization exists to demonstrate your claim.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWell that is entirely up to you and what meaning you wish to assign to the phrase 'spiritual life'. I believe that even theists give it quite a wide range of meaning. A number of famous scientists have claimed to have felt a deep spiritual connection to the universe or other such references to 'spiritual'. As for myself, I rather doubt anything about my life would fit most peoples definition of 'spiritual'.
I don't think ancestor worship is really in a different category from theism. I'm not asking for a spiritual life to be tied to their atheism, I'm asking what it means for an atheist to have a spiritual life.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think as humans ~ whether we be theists or atheists ~ we are endowed with a capacity for projecting ourselves in abstract ways and also we are affected and influenced and shaped by the abstract projections of other people.
I'm not asking for a spiritual life to be tied to their atheism, I'm asking what it means for an atheist to have a spiritual life.
Added to this, we clearly have individual spirits ~ perhaps the same thing that most religionists refer to as a "soul" - although they would almost certainly define it [and explain it!] differently from non-religionists and atheists ~ which comprise personality, uniqueness, relationships, and other abstract aspects all bound together in the singular personal narrative that each of us accumulates as we live our lives.
This is the nature of the human spirit and is therefore ~ to my way of thinking ~ the domain of "spirituality" [i.e. concerned with or affecting or being affected by the spirit or "soul"]. I think it is clear that both theists and atheists exist and live out their lives in this domain.
For Christians, their human spirit ~ and all the metaphysical facilities and capacities attendant thereto (which I observe non-believers to also possess) ~ has taken them into the philosophical realm of religious belief.
For Christians (and other theists), "spirituality" is intricately bound to a supernatural being with whom they perceive themselves to be in a relationship; for an atheist, the same ability and inclination ~ their spirit in action ~ to contemplate themselves [and what it is that they seem to be part of here in this world as they live their lives] has not resulted in them perceiving themselves to be in a relationship with a supernatural being, but it is the spiritual nature of both theists and atheists have in common that has led to these two different outcomes.