Should I tell her I’m agnostic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being an atheist is not the absence of faith — it is just a very different type of faith. Chances are highly likely that your MIL has all kinds of opinions and views about how the world is ordered, what is right, what is wrong, what happens in the afterlife (if anything) — none of which can be proven scientifically.

These belief systems are her own “religion” even if she doesn’t recognize it as such. The fact that she was very judgmental about your religious choices shows how she isn’t very different from “religious” people. It never ceases to amaze me how many athesists detest so-called “fundamentalist” people and yet they can be just as intolerant, strident, rigid, narrow, and adhering to a set of “rules” about how people MUST act as any fundamentalist person.

True tolerance is being able to look at another’s religious beliefs — or lack thereof — and be able to respectfully disagree and co-exist.

In my view, I wouldn’t shy away from whatever you believe — be it real Catholicism, cultural Catholicism, or no Catholicism at all. I became born again in my early 40s and used to fear talking to my MIL about it because she is also a very loud atheist. But the more I respectfully stated my views and didn’t just give into her — the more she actually respected me. Bullies sometimes respond that way.

No, you're wrong: Being atheist is the lack of religious faith.

A religion is simply a system of beliefs about how the world operates. Every atheist I have ever met has all types of beliefs about how the world operates — about what is right, what is wrong, moral obligations, or lack thereof, justice, equality, and so on — many of which are just as strongly held as the most “religious” people I know. (In fact, many of their atheist beliefs - especially around justice and equality in the United States — are actually drawn from historic Christianity, whether they realize it or not). But none of these things can be scientifically proven. When I used to describe myself as an atheist, it was not the absence of religion — just a very different type of religion.

YOu're wrong about religion too. t's more than a system of beliefs about how the world operates. It's belief in a supreme being. Someone who is supernatural. Atheists have no supernatural beliefs.

No — certain types of religion have a belief in a supreme being and supernatural events. But that’s not true across the board — certainly not true of most eastern religions. And even then — for those religions that do believe in a supreme being or supernatural beliefs — the belief in a supreme being or supernatural occurrences is typically part of a larger worldview that goes to the very heart of how the world is organized It is not just an abstract belief in God.

Likewise, Atheists have many ideas about how the world is organized and how it all fits together. It’s the same thing as a “religion” in any true understanding of that term.

And then there are the many people who describe themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” — who are really saying “yes I do believe in something else out there” — which again functions as its own religion. Many of these people actually strongly believe in supernatural events even if they don’t believe in a supreme God like Christians do.

some religions may not believe in the supernatural - I don't know of any. Having ideas of how the world is organized is not the same as a religion. this seems like an opinion of yours - not a fact. Same with people who are spiritual but not religious, You seem to be stating your opinions as facts. That's my opinion.

Atheists’ ideas on how the world is fit together is informed by science and the scientific method.

First, many religious people are also informed by science.

But more importantly — the scientific method tells us absolutely nothing about the matters that are closest to our hearts — justice, equality, love, relationships, the meaning and purpose of life, fairness, moral obligations and responsibilities, basic ideas of right and wrong, and many other matters. There is no scientific way to “prove” any of these things. A truly honest atheist would say that none of these things really matter. But that’s not where most people want to go and instead they smuggle in values from religion in order to help them make sense of the world and give their life meaning and value.

I would say neurology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and biology (all sciences) tell us a lot about love and relationships, and how societies function based on mutually agreed upon ideas around fairness, equality, and societal obligations.

Ethics and moral philosophy (based on rational arguments and conceptual analysis discuss moral obligation, and ideas of right and wrong.

You’re right about one thing. Atheists would say that there is not one absolute correct way of being, or path, or moral code (unless you follow Kant’s formula on universal law).

Atheists are obviously comfortable without having God/s give their lives value and meaning.

What are your “mutually agreed upon ideas around fairness, equality, and societal obligations”? Given where you are writing from very likely, it probably goes something like we should treat people fairly, kindly, and justly, we should have compassion, we should not be racist, women have equal inherent worth as men, we should essentially be humanitarians. Guess where ALL of those values sprang from? Christianity. And Christians didn’t just wake up one morning saying “oh we should be nice people.” They got it from a single person — Jesus — who they wanted to emulate because of the radically different values he espoused in an extremely harsh society.

These were not the values of the Roman Empire and times before that where women were raped, babies were thrown into trash cans, and the strong devoured the weak all the time without blinking an eye. Life didn’t matter at all back then — certainly not in the way that you value it now. Moreover, you have an extremely western view of these subjects — non-Christian Muslim countries, tribes in Africa, etc would not necessarily agree with your view of moral obligations at all. And we don’t even have to go that far. My guess is that you and your next door neighbor might have a lot of disagreements about what are “shared mutual obligations” if you got into the nitty gritty.

If there is no God there is most definitely no agreed upon worldview in these areas. Christianity however says that there is a God, everyone is made in his image and therefore is deserving of dignity and respect, you should love your neighbor as yourself, and there are certain basic ways that humans should treat each other — embodied in the 10 commandments, which are essentially a good way to live life — don’t cheat, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t kill people, treat your parents with respect.

It’s what I wrote elsewhere — you can claim to be an atheist but you have to smuggle in Christian values into your life to make sense of the world. Otherwise, there are no shared ideas around moral obligations that modern western people agree with.

As for what science tells us about love relationships — science itself tells you nothing about the nature of love. Who should you love? How do you even describe love? No science textbook explain that. They can’t. And if we want to be really blunt about it — if you believe in evolutionary theory to its core — then there is no ultimate creator or moral force in society, all that happened was one day the fishes somehow got on the land and we have been evolving ever since to our current state. In that sort of worldview, love is simply your brain playing a massive trick on you — little sparks in your brain that go back to your parents protecting you as a baby or your desire for having sex with someone else. And yet — we all know deep down — that love is so much more than that. That when parents die or spouses die or or children die or people leave us or we fall in love with the right person or we see our parents — it is something that we feel in our souls, it wrecks us, it invigorates us, it inspires us. Every single Hollywood movie that touches on love also tells us that love is something much more than just your brain playing a chemical trick on itself. Christians believe that God himself created love and that the father-son-holy spirit have been in a love relationship through all time and that the love relationship that they have is the same deep sense of love that we feel for other humans. We feel it — again — because we are created in the image of God.

So what worldview is more consistent with how we actually live our life? That we are really just fishes from the sea, that feeling love is a silly trick, a pure biological process — get over it when your kid or spouse die, it was all just a fabrication anyway and meaningless.

Or that love is something much deeper, more profound, hardwired into us, and something we deeply desire due to the very nature of our humanity?

Babe, if you think this doesn't happen today, I want whatever you're smoking.

Another non-answer. Of course Christians--and atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone else--sometimes behave very badly and in complete opposition to the tenets of their faiths or belief systems. Don't make us list atheist heads of state who have murdered millions.

PP's point still stands, your lame red herring notwithstanding. Jesus' message sprang up in complete opposition to Roman morals at the time, and even confronted his parents' faith in terms of accepting non-believers, non-violence, etc. Jesus' message was radically new and revolutionary, and forms the basis for much of Western secular values even today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being an atheist is not the absence of faith — it is just a very different type of faith. Chances are highly likely that your MIL has all kinds of opinions and views about how the world is ordered, what is right, what is wrong, what happens in the afterlife (if anything) — none of which can be proven scientifically.

These belief systems are her own “religion” even if she doesn’t recognize it as such. The fact that she was very judgmental about your religious choices shows how she isn’t very different from “religious” people. It never ceases to amaze me how many athesists detest so-called “fundamentalist” people and yet they can be just as intolerant, strident, rigid, narrow, and adhering to a set of “rules” about how people MUST act as any fundamentalist person.

True tolerance is being able to look at another’s religious beliefs — or lack thereof — and be able to respectfully disagree and co-exist.

In my view, I wouldn’t shy away from whatever you believe — be it real Catholicism, cultural Catholicism, or no Catholicism at all. I became born again in my early 40s and used to fear talking to my MIL about it because she is also a very loud atheist. But the more I respectfully stated my views and didn’t just give into her — the more she actually respected me. Bullies sometimes respond that way.

No, you're wrong: Being atheist is the lack of religious faith.

A religion is simply a system of beliefs about how the world operates. Every atheist I have ever met has all types of beliefs about how the world operates — about what is right, what is wrong, moral obligations, or lack thereof, justice, equality, and so on — many of which are just as strongly held as the most “religious” people I know. (In fact, many of their atheist beliefs - especially around justice and equality in the United States — are actually drawn from historic Christianity, whether they realize it or not). But none of these things can be scientifically proven. When I used to describe myself as an atheist, it was not the absence of religion — just a very different type of religion.

YOu're wrong about religion too. t's more than a system of beliefs about how the world operates. It's belief in a supreme being. Someone who is supernatural. Atheists have no supernatural beliefs.

No — certain types of religion have a belief in a supreme being and supernatural events. But that’s not true across the board — certainly not true of most eastern religions. And even then — for those religions that do believe in a supreme being or supernatural beliefs — the belief in a supreme being or supernatural occurrences is typically part of a larger worldview that goes to the very heart of how the world is organized It is not just an abstract belief in God.

Likewise, Atheists have many ideas about how the world is organized and how it all fits together. It’s the same thing as a “religion” in any true understanding of that term.

And then there are the many people who describe themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” — who are really saying “yes I do believe in something else out there” — which again functions as its own religion. Many of these people actually strongly believe in supernatural events even if they don’t believe in a supreme God like Christians do.

some religions may not believe in the supernatural - I don't know of any. Having ideas of how the world is organized is not the same as a religion. this seems like an opinion of yours - not a fact. Same with people who are spiritual but not religious, You seem to be stating your opinions as facts. That's my opinion.

Atheists’ ideas on how the world is fit together is informed by science and the scientific method.

First, many religious people are also informed by science.

But more importantly — the scientific method tells us absolutely nothing about the matters that are closest to our hearts — justice, equality, love, relationships, the meaning and purpose of life, fairness, moral obligations and responsibilities, basic ideas of right and wrong, and many other matters. There is no scientific way to “prove” any of these things. A truly honest atheist would say that none of these things really matter. But that’s not where most people want to go and instead they smuggle in values from religion in order to help them make sense of the world and give their life meaning and value.

I would say neurology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and biology (all sciences) tell us a lot about love and relationships, and how societies function based on mutually agreed upon ideas around fairness, equality, and societal obligations.

Ethics and moral philosophy (based on rational arguments and conceptual analysis discuss moral obligation, and ideas of right and wrong.

You’re right about one thing. Atheists would say that there is not one absolute correct way of being, or path, or moral code (unless you follow Kant’s formula on universal law).

Atheists are obviously comfortable without having God/s give their lives value and meaning.

What are your “mutually agreed upon ideas around fairness, equality, and societal obligations”? Given where you are writing from very likely, it probably goes something like we should treat people fairly, kindly, and justly, we should have compassion, we should not be racist, women have equal inherent worth as men, we should essentially be humanitarians. Guess where ALL of those values sprang from? Christianity. And Christians didn’t just wake up one morning saying “oh we should be nice people.” They got it from a single person — Jesus — who they wanted to emulate because of the radically different values he espoused in an extremely harsh society.

These were not the values of the Roman Empire and times before that where women were raped, babies were thrown into trash cans, and the strong devoured the weak all the time without blinking an eye. Life didn’t matter at all back then — certainly not in the way that you value it now. Moreover, you have an extremely western view of these subjects — non-Christian Muslim countries, tribes in Africa, etc would not necessarily agree with your view of moral obligations at all. And we don’t even have to go that far. My guess is that you and your next door neighbor might have a lot of disagreements about what are “shared mutual obligations” if you got into the nitty gritty.

If there is no God there is most definitely no agreed upon worldview in these areas. Christianity however says that there is a God, everyone is made in his image and therefore is deserving of dignity and respect, you should love your neighbor as yourself, and there are certain basic ways that humans should treat each other — embodied in the 10 commandments, which are essentially a good way to live life — don’t cheat, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t kill people, treat your parents with respect.

It’s what I wrote elsewhere — you can claim to be an atheist but you have to smuggle in Christian values into your life to make sense of the world. Otherwise, there are no shared ideas around moral obligations that modern western people agree with.

As for what science tells us about love relationships — science itself tells you nothing about the nature of love. Who should you love? How do you even describe love? No science textbook explain that. They can’t. And if we want to be really blunt about it — if you believe in evolutionary theory to its core — then there is no ultimate creator or moral force in society, all that happened was one day the fishes somehow got on the land and we have been evolving ever since to our current state. In that sort of worldview, love is simply your brain playing a massive trick on you — little sparks in your brain that go back to your parents protecting you as a baby or your desire for having sex with someone else. And yet — we all know deep down — that love is so much more than that. That when parents die or spouses die or or children die or people leave us or we fall in love with the right person or we see our parents — it is something that we feel in our souls, it wrecks us, it invigorates us, it inspires us. Every single Hollywood movie that touches on love also tells us that love is something much more than just your brain playing a chemical trick on itself. Christians believe that God himself created love and that the father-son-holy spirit have been in a love relationship through all time and that the love relationship that they have is the same deep sense of love that we feel for other humans. We feel it — again — because we are created in the image of God.

So what worldview is more consistent with how we actually live our life? That we are really just fishes from the sea, that feeling love is a silly trick, a pure biological process — get over it when your kid or spouse die, it was all just a fabrication anyway and meaningless.

Or that love is something much deeper, more profound, hardwired into us, and something we deeply desire due to the very nature of our humanity?

Everyone can feel love, whether or not they follow a religion and whether or not they believe in God. God has nothing to do with love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being an atheist is not the absence of faith — it is just a very different type of faith. Chances are highly likely that your MIL has all kinds of opinions and views about how the world is ordered, what is right, what is wrong, what happens in the afterlife (if anything) — none of which can be proven scientifically.

These belief systems are her own “religion” even if she doesn’t recognize it as such. The fact that she was very judgmental about your religious choices shows how she isn’t very different from “religious” people. It never ceases to amaze me how many athesists detest so-called “fundamentalist” people and yet they can be just as intolerant, strident, rigid, narrow, and adhering to a set of “rules” about how people MUST act as any fundamentalist person.

True tolerance is being able to look at another’s religious beliefs — or lack thereof — and be able to respectfully disagree and co-exist.

In my view, I wouldn’t shy away from whatever you believe — be it real Catholicism, cultural Catholicism, or no Catholicism at all. I became born again in my early 40s and used to fear talking to my MIL about it because she is also a very loud atheist. But the more I respectfully stated my views and didn’t just give into her — the more she actually respected me. Bullies sometimes respond that way.

No, you're wrong: Being atheist is the lack of religious faith.

A religion is simply a system of beliefs about how the world operates. Every atheist I have ever met has all types of beliefs about how the world operates — about what is right, what is wrong, moral obligations, or lack thereof, justice, equality, and so on — many of which are just as strongly held as the most “religious” people I know. (In fact, many of their atheist beliefs - especially around justice and equality in the United States — are actually drawn from historic Christianity, whether they realize it or not). But none of these things can be scientifically proven. When I used to describe myself as an atheist, it was not the absence of religion — just a very different type of religion.

YOu're wrong about religion too. t's more than a system of beliefs about how the world operates. It's belief in a supreme being. Someone who is supernatural. Atheists have no supernatural beliefs.

No — certain types of religion have a belief in a supreme being and supernatural events. But that’s not true across the board — certainly not true of most eastern religions. And even then — for those religions that do believe in a supreme being or supernatural beliefs — the belief in a supreme being or supernatural occurrences is typically part of a larger worldview that goes to the very heart of how the world is organized It is not just an abstract belief in God.

Likewise, Atheists have many ideas about how the world is organized and how it all fits together. It’s the same thing as a “religion” in any true understanding of that term.

And then there are the many people who describe themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” — who are really saying “yes I do believe in something else out there” — which again functions as its own religion. Many of these people actually strongly believe in supernatural events even if they don’t believe in a supreme God like Christians do.

some religions may not believe in the supernatural - I don't know of any. Having ideas of how the world is organized is not the same as a religion. this seems like an opinion of yours - not a fact. Same with people who are spiritual but not religious, You seem to be stating your opinions as facts. That's my opinion.

Atheists’ ideas on how the world is fit together is informed by science and the scientific method.

First, many religious people are also informed by science.

But more importantly — the scientific method tells us absolutely nothing about the matters that are closest to our hearts — justice, equality, love, relationships, the meaning and purpose of life, fairness, moral obligations and responsibilities, basic ideas of right and wrong, and many other matters. There is no scientific way to “prove” any of these things. A truly honest atheist would say that none of these things really matter. But that’s not where most people want to go and instead they smuggle in values from religion in order to help them make sense of the world and give their life meaning and value.

I would say neurology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and biology (all sciences) tell us a lot about love and relationships, and how societies function based on mutually agreed upon ideas around fairness, equality, and societal obligations.

Ethics and moral philosophy (based on rational arguments and conceptual analysis discuss moral obligation, and ideas of right and wrong.

You’re right about one thing. Atheists would say that there is not one absolute correct way of being, or path, or moral code (unless you follow Kant’s formula on universal law).

Atheists are obviously comfortable without having God/s give their lives value and meaning.

What are your “mutually agreed upon ideas around fairness, equality, and societal obligations”? Given where you are writing from very likely, it probably goes something like we should treat people fairly, kindly, and justly, we should have compassion, we should not be racist, women have equal inherent worth as men, we should essentially be humanitarians. Guess where ALL of those values sprang from? Christianity. And Christians didn’t just wake up one morning saying “oh we should be nice people.” They got it from a single person — Jesus — who they wanted to emulate because of the radically different values he espoused in an extremely harsh society.

These were not the values of the Roman Empire and times before that where women were raped, babies were thrown into trash cans, and the strong devoured the weak all the time without blinking an eye. Life didn’t matter at all back then — certainly not in the way that you value it now. Moreover, you have an extremely western view of these subjects — non-Christian Muslim countries, tribes in Africa, etc would not necessarily agree with your view of moral obligations at all. And we don’t even have to go that far. My guess is that you and your next door neighbor might have a lot of disagreements about what are “shared mutual obligations” if you got into the nitty gritty.

If there is no God there is most definitely no agreed upon worldview in these areas. Christianity however says that there is a God, everyone is made in his image and therefore is deserving of dignity and respect, you should love your neighbor as yourself, and there are certain basic ways that humans should treat each other — embodied in the 10 commandments, which are essentially a good way to live life — don’t cheat, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t kill people, treat your parents with respect.

It’s what I wrote elsewhere — you can claim to be an atheist but you have to smuggle in Christian values into your life to make sense of the world. Otherwise, there are no shared ideas around moral obligations that modern western people agree with.

As for what science tells us about love relationships — science itself tells you nothing about the nature of love. Who should you love? How do you even describe love? No science textbook explain that. They can’t. And if we want to be really blunt about it — if you believe in evolutionary theory to its core — then there is no ultimate creator or moral force in society, all that happened was one day the fishes somehow got on the land and we have been evolving ever since to our current state. In that sort of worldview, love is simply your brain playing a massive trick on you — little sparks in your brain that go back to your parents protecting you as a baby or your desire for having sex with someone else. And yet — we all know deep down — that love is so much more than that. That when parents die or spouses die or or children die or people leave us or we fall in love with the right person or we see our parents — it is something that we feel in our souls, it wrecks us, it invigorates us, it inspires us. Every single Hollywood movie that touches on love also tells us that love is something much more than just your brain playing a chemical trick on itself. Christians believe that God himself created love and that the father-son-holy spirit have been in a love relationship through all time and that the love relationship that they have is the same deep sense of love that we feel for other humans. We feel it — again — because we are created in the image of God.

So what worldview is more consistent with how we actually live our life? That we are really just fishes from the sea, that feeling love is a silly trick, a pure biological process — get over it when your kid or spouse die, it was all just a fabrication anyway and meaningless.

Or that love is something much deeper, more profound, hardwired into us, and something we deeply desire due to the very nature of our humanity?

Babe, if you think this doesn't happen today, I want whatever you're smoking.

Another non-answer. Of course Christians--and atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone else--sometimes behave very badly and in complete opposition to the tenets of their faiths or belief systems. Don't make us list atheist heads of state who have murdered millions.

PP's point still stands, your lame red herring notwithstanding. Jesus' message sprang up in complete opposition to Roman morals at the time, and even confronted his parents' faith in terms of accepting non-believers, non-violence, etc. Jesus' message was radically new and revolutionary, and forms the basis for much of Western secular values even today.

Don't make me list religious heads of state who have murdered millions. Our current one is on his way.

Also, So what if Jesus' message was radically new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being an atheist is not the absence of faith — it is just a very different type of faith. Chances are highly likely that your MIL has all kinds of opinions and views about how the world is ordered, what is right, what is wrong, what happens in the afterlife (if anything) — none of which can be proven scientifically.

These belief systems are her own “religion” even if she doesn’t recognize it as such. The fact that she was very judgmental about your religious choices shows how she isn’t very different from “religious” people. It never ceases to amaze me how many athesists detest so-called “fundamentalist” people and yet they can be just as intolerant, strident, rigid, narrow, and adhering to a set of “rules” about how people MUST act as any fundamentalist person.

True tolerance is being able to look at another’s religious beliefs — or lack thereof — and be able to respectfully disagree and co-exist.

In my view, I wouldn’t shy away from whatever you believe — be it real Catholicism, cultural Catholicism, or no Catholicism at all. I became born again in my early 40s and used to fear talking to my MIL about it because she is also a very loud atheist. But the more I respectfully stated my views and didn’t just give into her — the more she actually respected me. Bullies sometimes respond that way.

No, you're wrong: Being atheist is the lack of religious faith.

A religion is simply a system of beliefs about how the world operates. Every atheist I have ever met has all types of beliefs about how the world operates — about what is right, what is wrong, moral obligations, or lack thereof, justice, equality, and so on — many of which are just as strongly held as the most “religious” people I know. (In fact, many of their atheist beliefs - especially around justice and equality in the United States — are actually drawn from historic Christianity, whether they realize it or not). But none of these things can be scientifically proven. When I used to describe myself as an atheist, it was not the absence of religion — just a very different type of religion.

YOu're wrong about religion too. t's more than a system of beliefs about how the world operates. It's belief in a supreme being. Someone who is supernatural. Atheists have no supernatural beliefs.

No — certain types of religion have a belief in a supreme being and supernatural events. But that’s not true across the board — certainly not true of most eastern religions. And even then — for those religions that do believe in a supreme being or supernatural beliefs — the belief in a supreme being or supernatural occurrences is typically part of a larger worldview that goes to the very heart of how the world is organized It is not just an abstract belief in God.

Likewise, Atheists have many ideas about how the world is organized and how it all fits together. It’s the same thing as a “religion” in any true understanding of that term.

And then there are the many people who describe themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” — who are really saying “yes I do believe in something else out there” — which again functions as its own religion. Many of these people actually strongly believe in supernatural events even if they don’t believe in a supreme God like Christians do.

some religions may not believe in the supernatural - I don't know of any. Having ideas of how the world is organized is not the same as a religion. this seems like an opinion of yours - not a fact. Same with people who are spiritual but not religious, You seem to be stating your opinions as facts. That's my opinion.

Atheists’ ideas on how the world is fit together is informed by science and the scientific method.

First, many religious people are also informed by science.

But more importantly — the scientific method tells us absolutely nothing about the matters that are closest to our hearts — justice, equality, love, relationships, the meaning and purpose of life, fairness, moral obligations and responsibilities, basic ideas of right and wrong, and many other matters. There is no scientific way to “prove” any of these things. A truly honest atheist would say that none of these things really matter. But that’s not where most people want to go and instead they smuggle in values from religion in order to help them make sense of the world and give their life meaning and value.

I would say neurology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and biology (all sciences) tell us a lot about love and relationships, and how societies function based on mutually agreed upon ideas around fairness, equality, and societal obligations.

Ethics and moral philosophy (based on rational arguments and conceptual analysis discuss moral obligation, and ideas of right and wrong.

You’re right about one thing. Atheists would say that there is not one absolute correct way of being, or path, or moral code (unless you follow Kant’s formula on universal law).

Atheists are obviously comfortable without having God/s give their lives value and meaning.

What are your “mutually agreed upon ideas around fairness, equality, and societal obligations”? Given where you are writing from very likely, it probably goes something like we should treat people fairly, kindly, and justly, we should have compassion, we should not be racist, women have equal inherent worth as men, we should essentially be humanitarians. Guess where ALL of those values sprang from? Christianity. And Christians didn’t just wake up one morning saying “oh we should be nice people.” They got it from a single person — Jesus — who they wanted to emulate because of the radically different values he espoused in an extremely harsh society.

These were not the values of the Roman Empire and times before that where women were raped, babies were thrown into trash cans, and the strong devoured the weak all the time without blinking an eye. Life didn’t matter at all back then — certainly not in the way that you value it now. Moreover, you have an extremely western view of these subjects — non-Christian Muslim countries, tribes in Africa, etc would not necessarily agree with your view of moral obligations at all. And we don’t even have to go that far. My guess is that you and your next door neighbor might have a lot of disagreements about what are “shared mutual obligations” if you got into the nitty gritty.

If there is no God there is most definitely no agreed upon worldview in these areas. Christianity however says that there is a God, everyone is made in his image and therefore is deserving of dignity and respect, you should love your neighbor as yourself, and there are certain basic ways that humans should treat each other — embodied in the 10 commandments, which are essentially a good way to live life — don’t cheat, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t kill people, treat your parents with respect.

It’s what I wrote elsewhere — you can claim to be an atheist but you have to smuggle in Christian values into your life to make sense of the world. Otherwise, there are no shared ideas around moral obligations that modern western people agree with.

As for what science tells us about love relationships — science itself tells you nothing about the nature of love. Who should you love? How do you even describe love? No science textbook explain that. They can’t. And if we want to be really blunt about it — if you believe in evolutionary theory to its core — then there is no ultimate creator or moral force in society, all that happened was one day the fishes somehow got on the land and we have been evolving ever since to our current state. In that sort of worldview, love is simply your brain playing a massive trick on you — little sparks in your brain that go back to your parents protecting you as a baby or your desire for having sex with someone else. And yet — we all know deep down — that love is so much more than that. That when parents die or spouses die or or children die or people leave us or we fall in love with the right person or we see our parents — it is something that we feel in our souls, it wrecks us, it invigorates us, it inspires us. Every single Hollywood movie that touches on love also tells us that love is something much more than just your brain playing a chemical trick on itself. Christians believe that God himself created love and that the father-son-holy spirit have been in a love relationship through all time and that the love relationship that they have is the same deep sense of love that we feel for other humans. We feel it — again — because we are created in the image of God.

So what worldview is more consistent with how we actually live our life? That we are really just fishes from the sea, that feeling love is a silly trick, a pure biological process — get over it when your kid or spouse die, it was all just a fabrication anyway and meaningless.

Or that love is something much deeper, more profound, hardwired into us, and something we deeply desire due to the very nature of our humanity?

Babe, if you think this doesn't happen today, I want whatever you're smoking.

Another non-answer. Of course Christians--and atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone else--sometimes behave very badly and in complete opposition to the tenets of their faiths or belief systems. Don't make us list atheist heads of state who have murdered millions.

PP's point still stands, your lame red herring notwithstanding. Jesus' message sprang up in complete opposition to Roman morals at the time, and even confronted his parents' faith in terms of accepting non-believers, non-violence, etc. Jesus' message was radically new and revolutionary, and forms the basis for much of Western secular values even today.

Don't make me list religious heads of state who have murdered millions. Our current one is on his way.

Also, So what if Jesus' message was radically new.

It's not new any more. It's 2,000 years old. It's hard to get excited about Jesus' now very old message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being an atheist is not the absence of faith — it is just a very different type of faith. Chances are highly likely that your MIL has all kinds of opinions and views about how the world is ordered, what is right, what is wrong, what happens in the afterlife (if anything) — none of which can be proven scientifically.

These belief systems are her own “religion” even if she doesn’t recognize it as such. The fact that she was very judgmental about your religious choices shows how she isn’t very different from “religious” people. It never ceases to amaze me how many athesists detest so-called “fundamentalist” people and yet they can be just as intolerant, strident, rigid, narrow, and adhering to a set of “rules” about how people MUST act as any fundamentalist person.

True tolerance is being able to look at another’s religious beliefs — or lack thereof — and be able to respectfully disagree and co-exist.

In my view, I wouldn’t shy away from whatever you believe — be it real Catholicism, cultural Catholicism, or no Catholicism at all. I became born again in my early 40s and used to fear talking to my MIL about it because she is also a very loud atheist. But the more I respectfully stated my views and didn’t just give into her — the more she actually respected me. Bullies sometimes respond that way.

No, you're wrong: Being atheist is the lack of religious faith.

A religion is simply a system of beliefs about how the world operates. Every atheist I have ever met has all types of beliefs about how the world operates — about what is right, what is wrong, moral obligations, or lack thereof, justice, equality, and so on — many of which are just as strongly held as the most “religious” people I know. (In fact, many of their atheist beliefs - especially around justice and equality in the United States — are actually drawn from historic Christianity, whether they realize it or not). But none of these things can be scientifically proven. When I used to describe myself as an atheist, it was not the absence of religion — just a very different type of religion.

YOu're wrong about religion too. t's more than a system of beliefs about how the world operates. It's belief in a supreme being. Someone who is supernatural. Atheists have no supernatural beliefs.

No — certain types of religion have a belief in a supreme being and supernatural events. But that’s not true across the board — certainly not true of most eastern religions. And even then — for those religions that do believe in a supreme being or supernatural beliefs — the belief in a supreme being or supernatural occurrences is typically part of a larger worldview that goes to the very heart of how the world is organized It is not just an abstract belief in God.

Likewise, Atheists have many ideas about how the world is organized and how it all fits together. It’s the same thing as a “religion” in any true understanding of that term.

And then there are the many people who describe themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” — who are really saying “yes I do believe in something else out there” — which again functions as its own religion. Many of these people actually strongly believe in supernatural events even if they don’t believe in a supreme God like Christians do.

some religions may not believe in the supernatural - I don't know of any. Having ideas of how the world is organized is not the same as a religion. this seems like an opinion of yours - not a fact. Same with people who are spiritual but not religious, You seem to be stating your opinions as facts. That's my opinion.

Atheists’ ideas on how the world is fit together is informed by science and the scientific method.

First, many religious people are also informed by science.

But more importantly — the scientific method tells us absolutely nothing about the matters that are closest to our hearts — justice, equality, love, relationships, the meaning and purpose of life, fairness, moral obligations and responsibilities, basic ideas of right and wrong, and many other matters. There is no scientific way to “prove” any of these things. A truly honest atheist would say that none of these things really matter. But that’s not where most people want to go and instead they smuggle in values from religion in order to help them make sense of the world and give their life meaning and value.

I would say neurology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and biology (all sciences) tell us a lot about love and relationships, and how societies function based on mutually agreed upon ideas around fairness, equality, and societal obligations.

Ethics and moral philosophy (based on rational arguments and conceptual analysis discuss moral obligation, and ideas of right and wrong.

You’re right about one thing. Atheists would say that there is not one absolute correct way of being, or path, or moral code (unless you follow Kant’s formula on universal law).

Atheists are obviously comfortable without having God/s give their lives value and meaning.

What are your “mutually agreed upon ideas around fairness, equality, and societal obligations”? Given where you are writing from very likely, it probably goes something like we should treat people fairly, kindly, and justly, we should have compassion, we should not be racist, women have equal inherent worth as men, we should essentially be humanitarians. Guess where ALL of those values sprang from? Christianity. And Christians didn’t just wake up one morning saying “oh we should be nice people.” They got it from a single person — Jesus — who they wanted to emulate because of the radically different values he espoused in an extremely harsh society.

These were not the values of the Roman Empire and times before that where women were raped, babies were thrown into trash cans, and the strong devoured the weak all the time without blinking an eye. Life didn’t matter at all back then — certainly not in the way that you value it now. Moreover, you have an extremely western view of these subjects — non-Christian Muslim countries, tribes in Africa, etc would not necessarily agree with your view of moral obligations at all. And we don’t even have to go that far. My guess is that you and your next door neighbor might have a lot of disagreements about what are “shared mutual obligations” if you got into the nitty gritty.

If there is no God there is most definitely no agreed upon worldview in these areas. Christianity however says that there is a God, everyone is made in his image and therefore is deserving of dignity and respect, you should love your neighbor as yourself, and there are certain basic ways that humans should treat each other — embodied in the 10 commandments, which are essentially a good way to live life — don’t cheat, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t kill people, treat your parents with respect.

It’s what I wrote elsewhere — you can claim to be an atheist but you have to smuggle in Christian values into your life to make sense of the world. Otherwise, there are no shared ideas around moral obligations that modern western people agree with.

As for what science tells us about love relationships — science itself tells you nothing about the nature of love. Who should you love? How do you even describe love? No science textbook explain that. They can’t. And if we want to be really blunt about it — if you believe in evolutionary theory to its core — then there is no ultimate creator or moral force in society, all that happened was one day the fishes somehow got on the land and we have been evolving ever since to our current state. In that sort of worldview, love is simply your brain playing a massive trick on you — little sparks in your brain that go back to your parents protecting you as a baby or your desire for having sex with someone else. And yet — we all know deep down — that love is so much more than that. That when parents die or spouses die or or children die or people leave us or we fall in love with the right person or we see our parents — it is something that we feel in our souls, it wrecks us, it invigorates us, it inspires us. Every single Hollywood movie that touches on love also tells us that love is something much more than just your brain playing a chemical trick on itself. Christians believe that God himself created love and that the father-son-holy spirit have been in a love relationship through all time and that the love relationship that they have is the same deep sense of love that we feel for other humans. We feel it — again — because we are created in the image of God.

So what worldview is more consistent with how we actually live our life? That we are really just fishes from the sea, that feeling love is a silly trick, a pure biological process — get over it when your kid or spouse die, it was all just a fabrication anyway and meaningless.

Or that love is something much deeper, more profound, hardwired into us, and something we deeply desire due to the very nature of our humanity?

Babe, if you think this doesn't happen today, I want whatever you're smoking.

Another non-answer. Of course Christians--and atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone else--sometimes behave very badly and in complete opposition to the tenets of their faiths or belief systems. Don't make us list atheist heads of state who have murdered millions.

PP's point still stands, your lame red herring notwithstanding. Jesus' message sprang up in complete opposition to Roman morals at the time, and even confronted his parents' faith in terms of accepting non-believers, non-violence, etc. Jesus' message was radically new and revolutionary, and forms the basis for much of Western secular values even today.

Jesus's ideas may have been revolutionary at the time, but they were perverted eventually, like everything else humans (first, the Catholic Church - and now the evangelicals) get their hands on.

[Anonymous]

PP, did you skip over all the Protestant and other non-Christian religions for a reason?

[Anonymous]

OP, I would not inform MIL. She does not warrant your honesty in this.

[Anonymous]

In law school we'd refer to OP's first post as "issue spotting." The issue here isn't the MIL's disdain for OP's religious upbringing or beliefs -- it's that she criticizes her to her children. It's completely unacceptable.

We have a very strong and close relationship with our grandchildren, see them very often, and love their mother very much as well. But their mother sure as hell ain't perfect and thinks and does plenty that we disagree with, including when it comes to parenting -- yet we would never in a million years say anything about any of that to the kids. Never.

This isn't a religious issue. OP is posting on the wrong forum. She belongs on "Family Relationships."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, did you skip over all the Protestant and other non-Christian religions for a reason?

Yes -- she doesn't believe in God anymore so no religion makes sense to her -- because, religions presume a belief in God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In law school we'd refer to OP's first post as "issue spotting." The issue here isn't the MIL's disdain for OP's religious upbringing or beliefs -- it's that she criticizes her to her children. It's completely unacceptable.

We have a very strong and close relationship with our grandchildren, see them very often, and love their mother very much as well. But their mother sure as hell ain't perfect and thinks and does plenty that we disagree with, including when it comes to parenting -- yet we would never in a million years say anything about any of that to the kids. Never.

This isn't a religious issue. OP is posting on the wrong forum. She belongs on "Family Relationships."

+1

[Anonymous]

Personally, I think the Jains are the most ethical of all religions. They sweep the ground before them so they don't tread on any insects while walking. That is true care for others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, did you skip over all the Protestant and other non-Christian religions for a reason?

No reason

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In law school we'd refer to OP's first post as "issue spotting." The issue here isn't the MIL's disdain for OP's religious upbringing or beliefs -- it's that she criticizes her to her children. It's completely unacceptable.

We have a very strong and close relationship with our grandchildren, see them very often, and love their mother very much as well. But their mother sure as hell ain't perfect and thinks and does plenty that we disagree with, including when it comes to parenting -- yet we would never in a million years say anything about any of that to the kids. Never.

This isn't a religious issue. OP is posting on the wrong forum. She belongs on "Family Relationships."

+1

Seems to me that OP's post would have been appropriate either here or there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being an atheist is not the absence of faith — it is just a very different type of faith. Chances are highly likely that your MIL has all kinds of opinions and views about how the world is ordered, what is right, what is wrong, what happens in the afterlife (if anything) — none of which can be proven scientifically.

These belief systems are her own “religion” even if she doesn’t recognize it as such. The fact that she was very judgmental about your religious choices shows how she isn’t very different from “religious” people. It never ceases to amaze me how many athesists detest so-called “fundamentalist” people and yet they can be just as intolerant, strident, rigid, narrow, and adhering to a set of “rules” about how people MUST act as any fundamentalist person.

True tolerance is being able to look at another’s religious beliefs — or lack thereof — and be able to respectfully disagree and co-exist.

In my view, I wouldn’t shy away from whatever you believe — be it real Catholicism, cultural Catholicism, or no Catholicism at all. I became born again in my early 40s and used to fear talking to my MIL about it because she is also a very loud atheist. But the more I respectfully stated my views and didn’t just give into her — the more she actually respected me. Bullies sometimes respond that way.

No, you're wrong: Being atheist is the lack of religious faith.

A religion is simply a system of beliefs about how the world operates. Every atheist I have ever met has all types of beliefs about how the world operates — about what is right, what is wrong, moral obligations, or lack thereof, justice, equality, and so on — many of which are just as strongly held as the most “religious” people I know. (In fact, many of their atheist beliefs - especially around justice and equality in the United States — are actually drawn from historic Christianity, whether they realize it or not). But none of these things can be scientifically proven. When I used to describe myself as an atheist, it was not the absence of religion — just a very different type of religion.

YOu're wrong about religion too. t's more than a system of beliefs about how the world operates. It's belief in a supreme being. Someone who is supernatural. Atheists have no supernatural beliefs.

No — certain types of religion have a belief in a supreme being and supernatural events. But that’s not true across the board — certainly not true of most eastern religions. And even then — for those religions that do believe in a supreme being or supernatural beliefs — the belief in a supreme being or supernatural occurrences is typically part of a larger worldview that goes to the very heart of how the world is organized It is not just an abstract belief in God.

Likewise, Atheists have many ideas about how the world is organized and how it all fits together. It’s the same thing as a “religion” in any true understanding of that term.

And then there are the many people who describe themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” — who are really saying “yes I do believe in something else out there” — which again functions as its own religion. Many of these people actually strongly believe in supernatural events even if they don’t believe in a supreme God like Christians do.

some religions may not believe in the supernatural - I don't know of any. Having ideas of how the world is organized is not the same as a religion. this seems like an opinion of yours - not a fact. Same with people who are spiritual but not religious, You seem to be stating your opinions as facts. That's my opinion.

Atheists’ ideas on how the world is fit together is informed by science and the scientific method.

First, many religious people are also informed by science.

But more importantly — the scientific method tells us absolutely nothing about the matters that are closest to our hearts — justice, equality, love, relationships, the meaning and purpose of life, fairness, moral obligations and responsibilities, basic ideas of right and wrong, and many other matters. There is no scientific way to “prove” any of these things. A truly honest atheist would say that none of these things really matter. But that’s not where most people want to go and instead they smuggle in values from religion in order to help them make sense of the world and give their life meaning and value.

I would say neurology, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and biology (all sciences) tell us a lot about love and relationships, and how societies function based on mutually agreed upon ideas around fairness, equality, and societal obligations.

Ethics and moral philosophy (based on rational arguments and conceptual analysis discuss moral obligation, and ideas of right and wrong.

You’re right about one thing. Atheists would say that there is not one absolute correct way of being, or path, or moral code (unless you follow Kant’s formula on universal law).

Atheists are obviously comfortable without having God/s give their lives value and meaning.

What are your “mutually agreed upon ideas around fairness, equality, and societal obligations”? Given where you are writing from very likely, it probably goes something like we should treat people fairly, kindly, and justly, we should have compassion, we should not be racist, women have equal inherent worth as men, we should essentially be humanitarians. Guess where ALL of those values sprang from? Christianity. And Christians didn’t just wake up one morning saying “oh we should be nice people.” They got it from a single person — Jesus — who they wanted to emulate because of the radically different values he espoused in an extremely harsh society.

These were not the values of the Roman Empire and times before that where women were raped, babies were thrown into trash cans, and the strong devoured the weak all the time without blinking an eye. Life didn’t matter at all back then — certainly not in the way that you value it now. Moreover, you have an extremely western view of these subjects — non-Christian Muslim countries, tribes in Africa, etc would not necessarily agree with your view of moral obligations at all. And we don’t even have to go that far. My guess is that you and your next door neighbor might have a lot of disagreements about what are “shared mutual obligations” if you got into the nitty gritty.

If there is no God there is most definitely no agreed upon worldview in these areas. Christianity however says that there is a God, everyone is made in his image and therefore is deserving of dignity and respect, you should love your neighbor as yourself, and there are certain basic ways that humans should treat each other — embodied in the 10 commandments, which are essentially a good way to live life — don’t cheat, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t kill people, treat your parents with respect.

It’s what I wrote elsewhere — you can claim to be an atheist but you have to smuggle in Christian values into your life to make sense of the world. Otherwise, there are no shared ideas around moral obligations that modern western people agree with.

As for what science tells us about love relationships — science itself tells you nothing about the nature of love. Who should you love? How do you even describe love? No science textbook explain that. They can’t. And if we want to be really blunt about it — if you believe in evolutionary theory to its core — then there is no ultimate creator or moral force in society, all that happened was one day the fishes somehow got on the land and we have been evolving ever since to our current state. In that sort of worldview, love is simply your brain playing a massive trick on you — little sparks in your brain that go back to your parents protecting you as a baby or your desire for having sex with someone else. And yet — we all know deep down — that love is so much more than that. That when parents die or spouses die or or children die or people leave us or we fall in love with the right person or we see our parents — it is something that we feel in our souls, it wrecks us, it invigorates us, it inspires us. Every single Hollywood movie that touches on love also tells us that love is something much more than just your brain playing a chemical trick on itself. Christians believe that God himself created love and that the father-son-holy spirit have been in a love relationship through all time and that the love relationship that they have is the same deep sense of love that we feel for other humans. We feel it — again — because we are created in the image of God.

So what worldview is more consistent with how we actually live our life? That we are really just fishes from the sea, that feeling love is a silly trick, a pure biological process — get over it when your kid or spouse die, it was all just a fabrication anyway and meaningless.

Or that love is something much deeper, more profound, hardwired into us, and something we deeply desire due to the very nature of our humanity?

Everyone can feel love, whether or not they follow a religion and whether or not they believe in God. God has nothing to do with love.

“God has nothing to do with love”: PP believes God is love. Key word: believe.
“everyone can feel love”: PP did not say that only people who follow a religion or believe in God can love. They actually made the opposite argument, that the capacity for love is in everyone.

You do not have to agree with PP but your argument is in response to something they did not say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think the Jains are the most ethical of all religions. They sweep the ground before them so they don't tread on any insects while walking. That is true care for others.

But I don't care if I -- or they -- step on insects. So to me, the Jains don't show their high ethics by sweeping the ground at all.