<p>I understand what you mean but you're implying a broader definition of atheism than what it actually is. Atheism (by definition) is simply the disbelief in the supernatural (including God). Rejecting the morality of a particular religion is not only rejecting God but all of the religious entrapments surrounding that concept. If someone knows of a particular word for rejecting <em>religion</em> that would be more appropriate.</p>
<p>On a personal note I not only reject God but religious morality as well. I am also a very moral person - by different standards. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality.</p>
<p>Actually, atheism is the disbelief in God's existance. "Atheism" is an even more restricted term than you give it credit. "Theism" comes from "theos" meaning God in Greek... and atheism is the refusal to acknowledge the existance of God. </p>
<p>You're right, though -- There should be a term for rejecting the existance of God and religion. But, I do not think that you should be calling yourself an atheist if you are believe in the morals perpetuated by religion. Have you ever heard anyone say that they rejected God's existance but that they still believed in religion? Probably not... It sounds ridiculous, but many people fall into this category, maybe without even noticing it.</p>
<p>There is generally a confusion about morals and God being too closely intertwined. God is only the medium by which people have been forced to follow certain morals out of fear--fear of God. They are not one and the same...</p>
<p>The only thing I cannot understand is how you can admit to believing, to having faith, in something irrational and still believe without questioning. People don't question anything anymore... questioning doesn't mean refusing. It just means taking into consideration other points of view and thinking about it for yourself.</p>
<p>Myself -- what I mean is that, by the common use of the term, I do not want to be considered an atheist (in the sense that it has been given).</p>
<p>"Personally I wouldn't want to live if I was the slave of some higher power or the equally repugnant "common good"."</p>
<p>Are you saying that a higher power is repugnant, or slavery to it, or neither?</p>
<p>"If you admit something can't be proven why do you believe in it? How do you know what you believe is true if it can't be verified?"</p>
<p>To answer this, I'd say that I believe that it is true, not know it. I think it's safe to say that many Christians would say that they /believe/ that God exists, but they don't /know/ that he exists.</p>
<p>Jack -</p>
<p>"The only thing I cannot understand is how you can admit to believing, to having faith, in something irrational and still believe without questioning. People don't question anything anymore... questioning doesn't mean refusing. It just means taking into consideration other points of view and thinking about it for yourself."</p>
<p>I question, as do many other Christians I know, the existence of God. I've come to my own beliefs on God and have rejected much of what my church has taught.</p>
<p>Some people believe that the only "absolute truths" in the world are ones that can be somehow proven, and that's fine. From a philosophical point of view, it's impossible to prove that this world is actually real. Maybe we've all been duped and are actually in some sort of Matrix environment. How can we /know/ anything at all? I'm just saying that there are other points of view than the idea that all truths are based on the physical world.</p>
<p>But, I do not think that you should be calling yourself an atheist if you are believe in the morals perpetuated by religion. </p>
<hr>
<p>I completely disagree. I am an athiest but that does not mean that I cannot learn from the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha (though buddhism is not a true religion). Just because I believe Jesus wasnt the son of God doesnt mean I have to ignore everything that he preached.</p>
<p>Personally I don't see why you would want to live if there is no such thing as a higher power or greater good.</p>
<hr>
<p>Greater good and higher power are two completely different entities and you cannot place them together in such a phrase. Greater good does not have to have a religious connotation with it.</p>
<p>The greater good can be living to cure cancer...or saving the environment...or anything that helps people. It does not have to be something that proves your worth to a specific entity.</p>
<p>If we're all going to die, then why does any of this matter?</p>
<p>Most religions concern themselves with what happens after we die, whether we become reincarnated, achieve nirvana, go to heaven, whatever, most religions don't ask for much on this world other than just believing in teh faith and doing whatever the diety commands. If you don't want to live by a relgious standard, then one does have morals and maybe an innate desire to do good. However,</p>
<p>
[quote]
If we're all going to die, then why does any of this matter?
[/quote]
Because one's conception of death is directly related to how one leads one's life. If I think that I am going to die and be buried and that the world will never feel the effect of my existance, I will try to truly have an effect in this life. If I think that life on earth is merely a test and that it is devoid of meaning in comparison to life-after-death, I may lead a more humble life... In short, it makes an enormous difference on how a person acts. It basically defines their perspective on everything. It can all lead back to belief or non-belief.
[quote]
I am an athiest but that does not mean that I cannot learn from the teachings of Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha (though buddhism is not a true religion). Just because I believe Jesus wasnt the son of God doesnt mean I have to ignore everything that he preached.
[/quote]
I guess what I really mean is that there should be different terms to explicit what it is precisely that one does not believe. And, I think that I may not have been clear enough earlier. What I meant to say was that many of these morals benefit society. And for that, for their usefulness, I believe in their necessity (for example, respect of all people, conscious or not, rich or poor etc.). However, what I meant to say was that I do not believe in their "power" or in their being "natural" in any sense. They were invented by people to make society bearable and for that, I hold no dogmatic beliefs toward these morals.</p>
<p>an impact in this life isn't defined about how humble you are (ghandi?). there's nothing wrong with wanting to make an impact: charities, philanthropy, or having a great family life (maybe not a world-wide known impact, but one that is extremely important in my mind). </p>
<p>eye of the beholder -- both deciding what to do with the time given to us here with one another. even with different views, the question rests with each of us.</p>