The experience of a teenage atheist

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: Klassified
This statement I take strong issue with because it comes from arrogance and falsely assumes that Christianity is the sole author and arbiter of morality.

I'll just remind you that I wasn't a Christian when I wrote those words. I was observing the fact that pure rationalism wasn't providing a motive for following whatever abstract moral principles might be devised.

From perspective, Christian morals are actually quite twisted bordering on evil:

"Friedrich Nietzsche had some acute criticisms of Christianity. He said Christianity was born in response to Roman oppression. It took hold in the minds of timid slaves who did not have the courage or strength to take what they really wanted. The slaves could not admit to their own failings. So they clung to a philosophy that made virtue of cowardice. Everything the Christians wanted and wished they had in their lives for fulfillment was considered to be a sin. A position in the world, prestige, good sex, intellectual mastery, personal wealth were too difficult or beyond their reach. The Christian slaves created a hypocritical creed denouncing what they really wanted but were incapable of achieving while praising what they did not want was being virtuous. So in the Christian value system sexlessness turned into 'purity', weakness became "goodness," submission to authority became "obedience," and in Nietzsche's words, "not-being-able-take-revenge" turned into "forgiveness." A Christian slave was too weak to have any personal voice and was only capable of bending a knee to whoever was in authority. "

Submission to authority is not a very good basis for a religion. It's really good for monarchy and building empires.

Source?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yes and the west has been reasonable successful under the Christian moral standards while the third world and developing countries have all struggled under other beliefs, Roman Catholicism has not been a real leader in social advancements, possible oppression and violence opposed to Christ’s teaching

Morality is a social concept developed within religious construct

Paganism in Europe was tribal and violent, Asia was pagan, tribal, Africa, Australia, South America mostly if not totally pagan, tribal and violent.

Christianity is counter cultural, all encompassing to those who choose and as Dfnj posted, Nietzsche observations, significantly different to most everything else

Called to be meek, loving, caring, serving, honest and expressing faith. Yes, christianity has been used as a violent weapon but that is not considered Christian in its actions by many if any at all

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Morality is a social construct agreed upon by national consensus and enforced by federal law.

You agree, then, with my teenage conclusion that it doesn't get self-enforced on the individual by his own rational arguments. It has to come from "outside" in some sense.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Morality is a social construct agreed upon by national consensus and enforced by federal law.

You agree, then, with my teenage conclusion that it doesn't get self-enforced on the individual by his own rational arguments. It has to come from "outside" in some sense.

That's the literal definition of a social construct, yes.

Wall of text requires vision. I thought faith was independent of literary skills?

a reply to: DISRAELI

I was keeping a diary at the time, but there were no free moments to reflect upon the event until Boxing Day; “… I do not have the powerful motives which drive men to religion. The origin lies in the desire for some kind of security, to offset the dreadful weakness of man alone inside the vastness of the universe. The faith in religion gives comfort, but since I have not any strong faith, I felt there was little point in maintaining nominal adherence to it, in pretending to have faith. I would not have the comfort of religion, but I would not have it in any case…” 

It is a common misconception that if you have no god, you have no faith. I have faith in more dependable things, like the 5 second rule and not getting hung up on broken mirrors, that I dont need to carry salt or garlic with me for supernatural emergencies, that my karma wont change if I dont knock on wood, that I can choose who I want to be without checking my zodiac sign. I also have faith that with a solid plan, a plausible back up plan, the right set of tools, proper timing and plenty of common sense (plus a couple good friends) you shouldnt need superpowers or otherworldly help. Learn to fish for yourself. The faith is in knowing that you are all you need.

a reply to: TzarChasm
This is really just tinkering with terminology. Obviously I was using the word "faith" in relation to religious faith. I would have said at the time that I was renouncing dependence on something external in favour of self-dependence. You are saying the same thing, except that you are labelling self-dependence as a variety of faith.

There is the big question of whether self-dependence is a dependence on something reliable, or whether it is a leaning upon a broken reed.
Then there is the moral issue; whether refusing to depend on something external isn't just an excuse for refusing to be accountable to something external. It was the moral issue that turned me round in the sequel, the moment when I recognised that I had actively chosen the option of "non-belief" instead of having it forced on me, so that I had no defence if the choice should be challenged.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: TzarChasm
This is really just tinkering with terminology. Obviously I was using the word "faith" in relation to religious faith. I would have said at the time that I was renouncing dependence on something external in favour of self-dependence. You are saying the same thing, except that you are labelling self-dependence as a variety of faith.

There is the big question of whether self-dependence is a dependence on something reliable, or whether it is a leaning upon a broken reed.
Then there is the moral issue; whether refusing to depend on something external isn't just an excuse for refusing to be accountable to something external. It was the moral issue that turned me round in the sequel, the moment when I recognised that I had actively chosen the option of "non-belief" instead of having it forced on me, so that I had no defence if the choice should be challenged.

Refusing to be dependent on something external is self accountability. You are embracing your free will as an independent problem solving agency instead of acting like accountability to some otherworldly force is sufficient oversight to guarantee success regardless of preparation or circumstance. Your logic is that a crutch is more useful than a broken reed but my logic is that a crutch is most useful when you don't need it. And who are you to call any of us a broken reed?