This comic genius drops truth bombs on this shit:
Many of the atheists are doing better than religionists!
You say that a 'person who doesn't believe in God has no obligation to care for anyone,' which I think is an unfair judgment. I find many of my atheist friends, especially ones here, who consider caring for their neighbor a serious obligation. One does not have to have a belief in God to be moral, just, or feel obligated for caring for their community and making the world a better place. Some of history's best examples of this are atheists and agnostics.
I think some here, including myself, a Jew, might see this as stereotyping. That's an unfair use of labels, don't you think. Just the other day I saw Simon, the man who runs this board, do something very caring, moving and brave on this site because he obviously has an innate sense of honor for caring for others. He doesn't believe in God, but rest assured I don't think he or other atheists like him think this somehow makes them without obligation.
I also think you are judging things from a Christian perspective. I wouldn't say that what I do as a Jew constitutes a "belief" in God. Beliefs are the holding of a static concept in the mind, often abstract, a mental assent to a particular concept without doubt required of Christians to belong to their particular denominations. As a Jew I have to agree with James on this one: "You believe in God, you say? All well and good. But so do demons, though the thought scares them."--James 2:19.
Beliefs in of themselves are not always beneficial, though people fight over them as if they were money. Who says that people who believe in God have a responsibility to care for others? Does it mastter? It's just another belief, a mental spark, that a person can fulfill or fail to live up to. So what if a theist doesn't live up to their beliefs? Beliefs are not tangible. If your belief doesn't move you to act accordingly under test, what good is assent to a mental concept, a definition someone demands that you agree to hold onto in your head?
What people accomplish is what matters. Everyone fails, regardless of those "beliefs" so many feel are so important. True, they can and should inspire a person to do good, but again beliefs are static. Holding onto a belief is not the same as doing something like living up to it.
Belief in a God is a label. You cannot prove that your mental assent to this concept is being grasped exactly as necessary to meet the criteria set by some theologian. Disbelief in God is just as intangible. Neither mental concept can gift a person with abilities to do good or bad. Can an atheist guarantee that they disbelieve in God as much as necessary to truly count as an atheist? Can Christians guarantee that they really believe in something like the Trinity accurately enough and complete enough to warrant membership and avoid excommunication?
A Christian might place an obligation upon themselves to care for their neighbor and not live up to it. So? Didn't they themselves place this obligation upon themselves? Even if this obligation really came down from Heaven, didn't they still personally agree to place this obligation upon themselves? Placing an obligation upon oneself, even one that comes from a deity, is no guarantee that you can live up to it.
Now I am a Jewish, someone with a religion. Obviously your belief that "religionists" act or fail to act a certain way doesn't apply to all people with a religion. If all religionists were the same I wouldn't be writing any of this. Because of my religious upbringing I take the stand that it is humanity that commits the failure, not the beliefs or lack thereof. These beliefs or non-beliefs are just labels people often hide behind or proudly wear or use as an excuse to judge others. The common denominator is the human behind the belief or non-belief.
So just answer me this: Does anyone have to have a message from Heaven to be obligated to care for their neighbor and are religionists the only people who fail at this?
“as it were, “in the Kingdom of the heavens” is your belief rather your interpretation—taking Jesus words and giving your meaning to it.
How is that any different than you deciding what Buddha's silence means?
Atheists have just as bloody and monstrous a record of violating human rights and slaughtering innocents in the name of their views as people of religion do. Whether it is North Korea where religion has been totally outlawed, the People's Republic of China where freedom of religion is guaranteed as long as you freely practice according to that government's strict guidelines (or else face persecution, imprisonment, and sometimes forced conversion to the religion of China's choice) or the inhuman treatment of the various communist regimes that ruled under atheism with a iron but very blood fist, people with no religion are just as capable of decapitating, gutting, and denying what they do to humans as people who claim to believe in God can.
Well, that's pure BS. Those were attempts to have no authority higher than the state, not doing things in the name of atheism or because of a desire to say "don't believe in god. Also, religion isn't outlawed in North Korea or China.
Have you ever asked any Buddhist: "who is your God?" [I have asked as I have worked in a Buddhist country]
Irrelevant. You said that someone was taking Jesus words and assigning meaning, not Jesus' followers words.
You did exactly the same thing, take Buddha's lack of words and assign meaning. Similarly, asking what his followers later think is just as pointless.
A) Did the Buddha engage in speculative discussion about God?
B) Would you not agree that many Buddhists simply say that the existence of God is not proven and not relevant to their core Buddhist principals anyway?
C) Would you agree a Buddhist can believe in God if it agrees with their own reason and common sense?
Personally I think it a broad sweeping statement to say all Buddhists don't believe in God, and a little arrogant to assume a particular brand of buddisam has all the answers. Hello thats what we once thought with our brand of Christianity, that we were in the " truth" .and had all the answers. Confucius.
Let Buddha’s silence mean whatever, it has nothing to do with my subject. I was just contrasting two groups. A person who does not believe in God has no obligation to care for anyone whereas a person who believes in God feels obliged to care for others. In this context one can ask: How can atheists care for others whereas religionists go in opposite direction? Situation is similar to Fire-force personnel who shy away from putting out fire on somebody else’s property whereas the passersby [in this context atheists ]venture into and put off the fire.
Anointed1, " A person who does not believe in God has no obligation to care for anyone..."
I would answer a person who does not believe in God, may however have a strong belief in humanity, and thus an obligation to care for that humanity, it's people, it's animals, and it's environment. Too loose ones faith in God is a separate issue to loosing ones humanity. The progressive loss of my faith in God, and Jehovers Organisation, I believe has made me a more compassionate, tolerant and humane person.
I agree with you. The point is:
when atheist behaves better than religionist, it becomes a news
and when a religionist behaves goes inconsiderate, it too becomes a news