The concept of God

[Nungali]

Indeed, complexity creates more possibilities for malfunctions .

 

I could not wash my hands the other day in a public toilet ... the  automatic tap sensor on the tap was not working , so no water 

 

Dear 'World Computer Entity' ,

I am capable of turning on a tap manually. 

yours, in servitude, Nungali .

[Daniel]

On 11/13/2023 at 2:41 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

Apologies @Daniel, i dont take any of this stuff literally, but from an historical, Christian/gnostic perspective?

 

My objections in this context are to misquoting, cherry picking, ignoring details in the original language of any text. 

 

Quote

also, a lot here, myself included, seem to view God as present in everything (the universe/nature)… but is he also outside it?

 

Yes, but I would write it this way: 

 

If God is the creator and if God is absolutley-literally-infinite then God is present with everything (the universe/nature) and more.

 

When discussing the "nature" of God there are 2 concepts which need to be considered simultaneously.  1)  What is God?  2)  What is God doing?  Jewish monotheism describes God as absolutely-literally-infinite and as creator, the original "source".  This describes what God is, and what God is doing at the most fundemental, foundational, perspective. 

 

The implications of these two, simultaneously, absolutely-literally-infinite and creator, produces the concept which is commonly referred to as "the God of Abraham".  God is always and forever with Abraham, but, God is not Abraham and Abraham is not God.  God is with Abraham, God is not in Abraham. Distinguishing between God and Abraham, seems obvious.  Obviously God is not Abraham, and Abraham is not God.   

 

It is tempting to blur those distinctions for various reasons, and many consider enlightenment to be the realization there is no distinction.  They consider the distinction to be an illusion, but this is easily proven false.  Once it is proven false, if the premises hold, then God is simultaneously with its creation and beyond it, but God is neither IN the creation nor is God the creation itself. 

 

Sunlight is not the sun. The sun is not in sunlight.  Sunlight is in the sun, in potential, and sunlight is emerging from it.  The Sun is emanating sunlight.  Therefore God is WITH everything if God is absolutely literally infinite, but, God is not IN everything, if God is creating.

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Daniel

[Nungali]

Unless ...  one is non-Jewish and has the perception that   God  IS in everything , for example, some believe  'everything' is the physical body of God .

 

-    and   all other ideas are easily proven false  ....

 

 

 

 

.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Nungali

[old3bob]

On 11/15/2023 at 3:54 AM, NaturaNaturans said:

You are right, i do not want to mess with it. But tbh i am not convinced of their literal existence, and also the term demon/devil/satan is a very loaded term, as you touch on. Lucifer means light bringer, does it not? Hell and Hades, the Eulers of the norse and greek underworld forexample, does not seem to have been viewed as evil (as far as i know). Same goes for Osiris.
I do not see anything inherintley evil about knowledge, truth, freedom etc. as the older gods and myths seems to represent, allthough i would not like to rebel against «the most high.» It is a fine line, it seems.

 

Edit, continuing: If we accept the concept of a creator, or God, then it follows that «evil» forces are a creation of him as well, does it not?

 

learn the hard way if you must but I did warn you...

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

5 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

learn the hard way if you must but I did warn you...

What makes you say that?

 

______
 

On another note, i came by this hymn to Zeus, attributted to Cleanthes (331-231 bc). I think it is worth a read:

 

Spoiler

Translated by Stephen Hanselman

Most honored of immortals, many-named one, ever omnipotent,

Zeus, prime mover of nature, steering all things by your law,

Greetings! For it is proper for all mortals to speak to you:

For we all descend from you, bearing our share of your likeness

We alone, of all mortal creatures that live and move on earth.

So, I shall make song of you constantly and sing forever of your might.

Truly, this whole universe, spinning around the earth,

Obeys you wherever you lead, and willingly submits to your rule;

Such is the servant you hold in your unconquerable hands,

A double-edged, fiery, ever-living thunderbolt.

For by its strikes all the works of nature happen.

By it you direct the universal reason, which pervades all things

Intermixing with the great and small lights of the heavens.

Because of this you are the greatest, the highest ruler of all.

Not a single thing that is done on earth happens without you, God,

Nor in the divine heavenly sphere nor in the sea,

Except for what bad people do in their foolishness.

But you know how to make the crooked straight

And to bring order to the disorderly; even the unloved is loved by you.

For you have so joined all things into one, the good and the bad,

That they all share in a single unified everlasting reason.

It is shirked and avoided by all the wicked among mortals,

The wretched, who ever long for the getting of good things,

Neither see nor hear God’s universal law,

By which, obeying with understanding, they could share in the good life.

But instead they chase after this and that, far from the good,

Some in their aggressive zeal for fame,

Others with a disordered obsession with profits,

Still others in indulgence and the pleasurable exertions of the body.

[They desire the good] but are carried off here and there,

All the while in zealous pursuit of completely different outcomes.

But bountiful Zeus, shrouded in dark clouds and ruling the thunder,

Protect human beings from their ruinous ignorance;

Scatter it from our souls, grant that we might obtain

True judgment on which you rely to steer all things with justice;

So that having won honor, we may honor you in return,

Constantly singing of your works, as it is proper

For mortals to do. For neither mortals nor gods have any greater privilege

Than to make everlasting song of the universal law in justice.

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by NaturaNaturans
Found another translation

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, NaturaNaturans said:

What makes you say that?

 

Christianity  ? 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Translated by Stephen Hanselman

Most honored of immortals, many-named one, ever omnipotent,

Zeus, prime mover of nature, steering all things by your law,

Greetings! For it is proper for all mortals to speak to you:

For we all descend from you, bearing our share of your likeness

We alone, of all mortal creatures that live and move on earth.

So, I shall make song of you constantly and sing forever of your might.

Truly, this whole universe, spinning around the earth,

Obeys you wherever you lead, and willingly submits to your rule;

Such is the servant you hold in your unconquerable hands,

A double-edged, fiery, ever-living thunderbolt.

For by its strikes all the works of nature happen.

By it you direct the universal reason, which pervades all things

Intermixing with the great and small lights of the heavens.

Because of this you are the greatest, the highest ruler of all.

Not a single thing that is done on earth happens without you, God,

Nor in the divine heavenly sphere nor in the sea,

Except for what bad people do in their foolishness.

But you know how to make the crooked straight

And to bring order to the disorderly; even the unloved is loved by you.

For you have so joined all things into one, the good and the bad,

That they all share in a single unified everlasting reason.

It is shirked and avoided by all the wicked among mortals,

The wretched, who ever long for the getting of good things,

Neither see nor hear God’s universal law,

By which, obeying with understanding, they could share in the good life.

But instead they chase after this and that, far from the good,

Some in their aggressive zeal for fame,

Others with a disordered obsession with profits,

Still others in indulgence and the pleasurable exertions of the body.

[They desire the good] but are carried off here and there,

All the while in zealous pursuit of completely different outcomes.

But bountiful Zeus, shrouded in dark clouds and ruling the thunder,

Protect human beings from their ruinous ignorance;

Scatter it from our souls, grant that we might obtain

True judgment on which you rely to steer all things with justice;

So that having won honor, we may honor you in return,

Constantly singing of your works, as it is proper

For mortals to do. For neither mortals nor gods have any greater privilege

Than to make everlasting song of the universal law in justice.

 

 

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

17 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Hmm.. i prefare ab explonation to a warning i think 

[Jadespear]

On 10/31/2023 at 9:08 AM, Daniel said:

 

The "veil" metaphor is a good one.  But I think the illusion needs to be examined.  The veil is drapping over the truth, like a garment.  The outlines of the truth are there, present, proximal.  The veil is taking the shape of what is concealed within it.  But taking it one step further, the veil is fluid.  Reality is like an endless sea.  It's like water in all directions.  The veil is being poured over the truth and it is coating it in such that it appears there is no difference and distinction between outer shell and the inner essence.  That's the illusion.  

 

The illusion is there is only the shell and no inner essence.  OR.  There is only inner essence and no shell.  Both are false perceptions.  Once this illusion is realized, then, one can examine the illusion and accurately observe some of what is being concealed by it.  The accuracy of these observations comes from accurately realizing what the illusion is, and how it works.

 

Your qualification of "physical reality" is excellent.  Once the illusion is accurately understood, there are many non-physical worlds to explore, and a lot more can be learned that is not captured and contained in the here-and-now. 

 

The problem is, these illusions are everywhere.  You are correct, they surround everything.  The human mind naturally skips over these illusions in order to function.  Breaking down that natural and very useful automatic filtering in the mind produces a lot of problems if one is not very careful.  They will not be able to distinguish between the inner subjective experience and outer objective phenomena.  It's already a challenge to do so.  Erasing the filter which skips over the illusion, often makes it worse.  

 

 

 

I don't think using the words "illusion" or "veil" are good at all - because they aren't good ways of describing what you are referring to.  Just because there is a deeper and more universal aspect to things - that doesn't render everything that we can see and experience as being utterly "not real" or an "illusion" hiding the deeper reality...  both are real, there is no illusion as it were.  All that talk and nonsense of the world and life being an illusion is misleading when not understood in the full and proper context.  The actual description from eastern traditions is "deceptive appearance" - which is used to describe the temporal aspect of all phenomena comparatively against the absolute and eternal aspect underlying them.  

 

The only illusions there are are what people make up themselves about everything.  None of us can change the laws of reality, none of us actually create anything by ourselves...all thought and all ideas come from the source of all existence and reaches us according to our own level of maturity.  The only illusion is that people don't see that, they see something else...

 

 

[Daniel]

6 hours ago, Jadespear said:

 

 

I don't think using the words "illusion" or "veil" are good at all - because they aren't good ways of describing what you are referring to.  Just because there is a deeper and more universal aspect to things - that doesn't render everything that we can see and experience as being utterly "not real" or an "illusion" hiding the deeper reality...  both are real, there is no illusion as it were.  All that talk and nonsense of the world and life being an illusion is misleading when not understood in the full and proper context.  The actual description from eastern traditions is "deceptive appearance" - which is used to describe the temporal aspect of all phenomena comparatively against the absolute and eternal aspect underlying them.  

 

The only illusions there are are what people make up themselves about everything.  None of us can change the laws of reality, none of us actually create anything by ourselves...all thought and all ideas come from the source of all existence and reaches us according to our own level of maturity.  The only illusion is that people don't see that, they see something else...

 

 

 

I agree with everything you wrote, with the exception that I still think that the words "veil" and "illusion" are useful terms.  I especially agree with what you wrote, "both are real".  I tried to convey this same idea in the post which you quoted, but I did not make that clear enough.   The illusion I was referring to was that there was one or the other, not both.

 

Thank you,

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

8 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Hmm.. i prefare an explanation to a warning, i think 

 

Absolute freedom permits things I think you would find abhorent.  If there is a divinity ( angel, demon, whatever moniker you choose to apply to it ) which is advocating absolute freedom then it is dangerous if, big IF, it is permitted without any restrictions.

 

Knowledge is dangerous in a similar manner if it is not moderated by the understanding that knowledge is always and forever incomplete.  ( you don't know what you don't know ).  Incomplete knowledge, which is ignorant or in denial of its own ignorance is what perpetuates needless conflict.

 

Everything that exists which passes through human thought, word, and deed is capable of causing great harm if it is not moderated including moderation itself.

 

Most of these "forces" that you are being warned about resist moderation, or gradually lead away from moderation.

 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Daniel

[Sanity Check]

Some believe the world is organized around fundamental principles of law and order. There is a certain consistency about reality which lends itself towards some overriding purpose. Those who feel this way are typically believers in God.

 

On the flip side there is another demographic who believe order and natural principles of reality do not exist. They believe there is no purpose or grand design present in the universe. Only chaos and disorder. Those who feel this way are usually atheist.

 

Where these two trends meet in the middle, would traditionally be described as agnostic.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Sanity Check

[Sir Darius the Clairvoyent]

11 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Absolute freedom permits things I think you would find abhorent.  If there is a divinity ( angel, demon, whatever moniker you choose to apply to it ) which is advocating absolute freedom then it is dangerous if, big IF, it is permitted without any restrictions.

 

Knowledge is dangerous in a similar manner if it is not moderated by the understanding that knowledge is always and forever incomplete.  ( you don't know what you don't know ).  Incomplete knowledge, which is ignorant or in denial of its own ignorance is what perpetuates needless conflict.

 

Everything that exists which passes through human thought, word, and deed is capable of causing great harm if it is not moderated including moderation itself.

 

Most of these "forces" that you are being warned about resist moderation, or gradually lead away from moderation.

 

Hmm… leads me to question what is a «correct» amount of freedom, censorship and moderation, and how do we tell. My alarmbells goes off when somebody start talking on behalf of God.

[Cobie]

 

6 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

… what is a «correct» amount of freedom, censorship and moderation, and how do we tell. …

Difficult to know but still, imo, any system needs to set limits. This forum bumped into the limits to “freedom”, see 

The evacuees started OD, which imo * ran into the same problem and closed down. 
(* just my opinion, other OD forum members thought that was not the reason for the closure).

Some OD refugees started a new thing, forgot the name now; no idea if it’s still going. @wandelaar is it still going? 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Cobie

[wandelaar]

In my opinion OD worked well for quite some time. I don't agree with Cobie about the reason it eventually failed, but that doesn't matter here. The even later "forum" you refer to was on Discord. I have forgotten the name, and I left when it became clear that it was being misused by some members for spreading far right conspiracy theories and kindred bullshit. Fanatics of any color will not stop at simply posting their opinion on this or that but they will spread their propaganda all over the place when given a chance, thereby driving out the more serious members who like to have a civilized discussion. So members should not be allowed to overwhelm the forum by the sheer volume of their posts. And then there are also trolls and other sick minds who like to spoil the friendly atmosphere in a community. Those should be banned. Complete freedom is an illusion, and in practice it would lead to the law of the jungle with even less freedom than under even a stringent form of moderation. I cannot find the "forum" on Discord anymore. It may have disappeared or gone underground.

Edited November 19, 2023 by wandelaar

[Daniel]

7 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Hmm… leads me to question what is a «correct» amount of freedom, censorship and moderation, and how do we tell.

 

I think you can trust yourself when it comes to the "«correct» amount of freedom".  

 

Quote

My alarmbells goes off when somebody start talking on behalf of God.

 

I think you can and should trust those "alarmbells".  Although it is ironic, because you've posted a song twice recently where the lyrics are written from the perspective of a human "talking on behalf of God", and you like this.

 

If you look back at what I wrote, I am certainly not talking on behalf of God.  I am encouraging you. I am not discouraging you.  But, if you are cautious of those "talking on behalf of God", that should also include any inner-dialogue which is masquerading as "God" or a "god".

 

19 hours ago, Daniel said:

Absolute freedom permits things I think you would find abhorent. 

 

I am encouraging you to pay attention and trust your own inner moral compass.  If you ever find yourself entertained and pleased by imagining what is conventionally considered rape, murder, and theft, then it might be a good idea to doubt the inner moral compass.  I would be shocked if this ever happens to you, but, it can happen. 

 

For example: if your attitude about rape flipped for some reason, based on what you have shared about yourself, I would either consider that a form of insanity ( hopefully temporary ), or, I would consider it as if you had become a totally different person.

 

19 hours ago, Daniel said:

Most of these "forces" that you are being warned about resist moderation, or gradually lead away from moderation.

 

These "forces" are nothing more than thought forms.  They're nothing to be afraid of, but they are oppositional and they can be highly deceptive, but they are vital, important, necessary.  All of them are employed when rising up against any tyrannt against what appears to be insurrmountable odds.  The problem is, the freedom fighter often becomes the tyrannt themself.  Ending the cycle comes from moderation, but this moderation, itself, cannot be applied in the extreme. 

 

This is a paradox, but, as we say in my own tradition, "it's only a paradox".  True moderation includes itself; it does not exclude itself.  Moderating-moderation means that in some cases it's OK to take a strong stand. 

 

So, how does one know?  When should moderation be applied?  When should moderation be ignored?  It's hard work coming up with these answers.  In some ways, what you're doing is reinventing the wheel.  In general, in most cases, it's good to be cautious.  That's the origin of rules and warnings. 

 

19 hours ago, Daniel said:

Everything that exists which passes through human thought, word, and deed is capable of causing great harm if it is not moderated including moderation itself.

 

Rules and warnings are human.  They are not even close to being flawless.  It's good to question them.  Rules and warnings have reasons, but, as humans we have a tendancy to very quickly forget them.  Questioning rules and warnings is a way to re-establish those reasons and make sure that they are still valid, but, even this questioning needs moderation because it can be taken too far.

 

In so many ways, the heart is smarter than the mind, but it gets very little credit for being intelligent.  Incesssant questioning can overide the inherent brilliance of the understanding of the human heart ( not literally the heart, you know what I mean ).  It's something to be aware of, but, it should not discourage questioning. 

 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Daniel

[Nungali]

14 hours ago, Sanity Check said:

Some believe the world is organized around fundamental principles of law and order. There is a certain consistency about reality which lends itself towards some overriding purpose. Those who feel this way are typically believers in God.

 

On the flip side there is another demographic who believe order and natural principles of reality do not exist. They believe there is no purpose or grand design present in the universe. Only chaos and disorder. Those who feel this way are usually atheist.

 

Where these two trends meet in the middle, would traditionally be described as agnostic.

 

Any 'natural principles of reality'  would relate to nature , various forms of physics ,  the four fundamental powers , things like that . I dont see that those things need a God  and i think any atheist / materialist  would not have trouble accepting these natural forces of order and balance  .

 

However there is a whole lot of concepts people call 'natural law and order' that are not really , they are actually based on human needs and comfort and the way we philosophically prefer to live *   (but not in reality , eg. when we see the world situation throughout history and the present  ) , usually extremely modified by our own culture .  Eg 'Thou shalt not kill '   ......  'each ' other  ... but maybe we can kill 'the  '  other   ( if they are not 'really human' , the wrong color, religion, or really, any excuse we can come  up with .)

I find these types are the most likely to believe in the 'standard  God'  as in the mainstream 'western traditions' .

 

 

* same with ecology and 'saving the planet' ; all types of ecology are valid 'for the planet', including run away greenhouse effects ( they have happened in the past when no humans present ) . It isnt 'the planet' that needs saving , its our comfortable lifestyles and associations we want to save  ... even if that comfort is centered on appreciating cute furry animals  or diversity of species  ... its all geared towards our comfort or fear of 'un-comfort' .

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I think you can trust yourself when it comes to the "«correct» amount of freedom".  

 

 

I think you can and should trust those "alarmbells".  Although it is ironic, because you've posted a song twice recently where the lyrics are written from the perspective of a human "talking on behalf of God", and you like this.

 

If you look back at what I wrote, I am certainly not talking on behalf of God.  I am encouraging you. I am not discouraging you.  But, if you are cautious of those "talking on behalf of God", that should also include any inner-dialogue which is masquerading as "God" or a "god".

 

 

I am encouraging you to pay attention and trust your own inner moral compass.  If you ever find yourself entertained and pleased by imagining what is conventionally considered rape, murder, and theft, then it might be a good idea to doubt the inner moral compass.  I would be shocked if this ever happens to you, but, it can happen. 

 

For example: if your attitude about rape flipped for some reason, based on what you have shared about yourself, I would either consider that a form of insanity ( hopefully temporary ), or, I would consider it as if you had become a totally different person.

 

 

These "forces" are nothing more than thought forms.  They're nothing to be afraid of, but they are oppositional and they can be highly deceptive, but they are vital, important, necessary.  All of them are employed when rising up against any tyrannt against what appears to be insurrmountable odds.  The problem is, the freedom fighter often becomes the tyrannt themself.  Ending the cycle comes from moderation, but this moderation, itself, cannot be applied in the extreme. 

 

This is a paradox, but, as we say in my own tradition, "it's only a paradox".  True moderation includes itself; it does not exclude itself.  Moderating-moderation means that in some cases it's OK to take a strong stand. 

 

So, how does one know?  When should moderation be applied?  When should moderation be ignored?  It's hard work coming up with these answers.  In some ways, what you're doing is reinventing the wheel.  In general, in most cases, it's good to be cautious.  That's the origin of rules and warnings. 

 

 

Rules and warnings are human.  They are not even close to being flawless.  It's good to question them.  Rules and warnings have reasons, but, as humans we have a tendancy to very quickly forget them.  Questioning rules and warnings is a way to re-establish those reasons and make sure that they are still valid, but, even this questioning needs moderation because it can be taken too far.

 

In so many ways, the heart is smarter than the mind, but it gets very little credit for being intelligent.  Incesssant questioning can overide the inherent brilliance of the understanding of the human heart ( not literally the heart, you know what I mean ).  It's something to be aware of, but, it should not discourage questioning. 

 

 

 

Ummm ....   quoting yourself and responding  ?

 

You aren't going to start arguing with yourself are you  ? 

 

[wandelaar]

@Sanity Check

 

I happen to belong to an atheist society myself and I can assure you that I never met nor read about atheists "who believe order and natural principles of reality do not exist". Atheists are usually very rational people and thus they wouldn't be likely to ignore the order that is shown to exist by physics or even by the phenomena that any normal person is acquainted with such as the patterns of day and night, the phases of the moon and the seasons (and a whole lot of other things besides).

 

Quite another thing is the question of whether or not the order and natural principles that are present in the world have a purpose related to our human existence. Many atheists think that the very existence of people in this world is an accidental phenomenon that might as well not have happened had the circumstances on our planet been somewhat different. Of course this is hard to swallow, but it is precisely this point that makes (philosophical) Taoism acceptable to me because Taoism is one of the very few religions that doesn't ask me to believe in fairy tales. Tao is not benevolent.

[Cobie]

4 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

 … Tao is not benevolent.

Then why become one with Tao? 
 

 

[wandelaar]

1 minute ago, Cobie said:

Then why become one with Tao?

 

The whole idea that one could be apart from Tao is absurd. As I see it becoming one with Tao simply means realizing that one wasn't separated from Tao in the first place. This has a cognitive and an emotional aspect to it. I have mastered the cognitive realization but am still far from emotionally accepting myself as just another "straw dog".

[Sanity Check]

10 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Any 'natural principles of reality'  would relate to nature , various forms of physics ,  the four fundamental powers , things like that . I dont see that those things need a God  and i think any atheist / materialist  would not have trouble accepting these natural forces of order and balance  .

 

However there is a whole lot of concepts people call 'natural law and order' that are not really , they are actually based on human needs and comfort and the way we philosophically prefer to live *   (but not in reality , eg. when we see the world situation throughout history and the present  ) , usually extremely modified by our own culture .  Eg 'Thou shalt not kill '   ......  'each ' other  ... but maybe we can kill 'the  '  other   ( if they are not 'really human' , the wrong color, religion, or really, any excuse we can come  up with .)

I find these types are the most likely to believe in the 'standard  God'  as in the mainstream 'western traditions' .

 

 

* same with ecology and 'saving the planet' ; all types of ecology are valid 'for the planet', including run away greenhouse effects ( they have happened in the past when no humans present ) . It isnt 'the planet' that needs saving , its our comfortable lifestyles and associations we want to save  ... even if that comfort is centered on appreciating cute furry animals  or diversity of species  ... its all geared towards our comfort or fear of 'un-comfort' .

 

9 hours ago, wandelaar said:

@Sanity Check

 

I happen to belong to an atheist society myself and I can assure you that I never met nor read about atheists "who believe order and natural principles of reality do not exist". Atheists are usually very rational people and thus they wouldn't be likely to ignore the order that is shown to exist by physics or even by the phenomena that any normal person is acquainted with such as the patterns of day and night, the phases of the moon and the seasons (and a whole lot of other things besides).

 

Quite another thing is the question of whether or not the order and natural principles that are present in the world have a purpose related to our human existence. Many atheists think that the very existence of people in this world is an accidental phenomenon that might as well not have happened had the circumstances on our planet been somewhat different. Of course this is hard to swallow, but it is precisely this point that makes (philosophical) Taoism acceptable to me because Taoism is one of the very few religions that doesn't ask me to believe in fairy tales. Tao is not benevolent.

 

 

If a recap of ideological content atheists were most known for over the last decade was undertaken.

 

What would the strongest correlations be? Maybe it would go something like...

 

1.  Moral relativism. Atheists reject the concept of the world having a natural order of good and evil. Atheists claim morality is subjective with objective morality being impossible to know.

 

2.  Gender relativism. Atheists reject the concept of the world having a natural order of gender roles or gender being defined by genitalia. 

 

These examples provide a framework for virtually every atheist stance and position over the past 10 years.

 

Where atheism has encouraged society to cast aside traditional perceptions of natural order, to embrace chaos and disorder instead.

 

Natural order:  only women can have periods and get pregnant.

 

Chaos and disorder:  men can have periods and get pregnant, too.

 

While I'm not suggesting all atheists subscribe to these views. Or that any of you support these things.

 

These are the things atheism is most known for in this day and age.

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Sanity Check

[wandelaar]

It's clear to me that you are not really interested in understanding atheism. So for other readers who might be interested I will just post the following answer, and than quit. 

 

Please don't mix up postmodernism and atheism. Atheism has a respectable history spanning millennia. Postmodernism is no more than the latest pseudo-philosophical fad that doesn't hold up to critical scrutiny. Each period in time has it own typical forms of madness and postmodernism on the one hand and far right conspiracy theories on the other are the typical forms of ideological madness in our own days.

 

Atheist are only moral relativists as far as morality is in fact relative. However a workable system of morality can be build up on the basis of the necessity of having a functioning society for humans to be able to flourish and the idea that no one should have more or less rights that any other.

 

The idea that people should take the form of their genitals as defining for how they should live is absurd. But it's equally absurd to deny the likelihood that men and woman (where woman can give birth and man cannot) generally could have acquired somewhat different mentalities as a result of evolution. The general mental differences between men and woman however appear to be quite small compared to difference in character so there is no reason to predetermine how a child should be brought up on the basis of the form of their genitals alone. But equally there is no reason to suppress any tendencies that children might naturally show of their own to behave according to traditional gender roles.

Edited November 20, 2023 by wandelaar

[Taoist Texts]

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Atheism has a respectable history spanning millennia.

no, it has not

Quote

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god.^[a]  

nobody called himself an atheist before that

[wandelaar]

I see TT is up to his old tricks again. Quoting out of context, and spinning words and phrases. But I just don't care whether the doctrine was called atheism at the time or not or whether those holding such a doctrine called themselves atheists at the time or not. That's all quite irrelevant. What I do care about is when such doctrines were present or not. For those who are interested see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

Edited November 20, 2023 by wandelaar

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

I see TT is up to his old tricks again.

i dont make hilarious claims as such

 

6 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Atheism has a respectable history spanning millennia

unless you can provide a direct quote by someone from millennia ago  e.g. 'Hi my name is Plato and i am an atheist'....your claim is just hilarious. And it is hilarious because it parrots the modern atheist propaganda...  a 300 year old pretty recent trick, not aging well