Atheists In Heaven? Sign Of Shifting Moral Zeitgeist?

[DeSwiss]

Atheists in Heaven? Sign of shifting moral zeitgeist?

http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner">Atheism Examiner
January 2, 12:22 PM
by Trina Hoaks

A survey conducted in December of 2008 by http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=380">The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life yielded results that suggest that there are “believers” who think that non-religious people as well as atheists can go to Heaven. This runs contrary to the impression that some atheists get when they hear religious fundamentalists saying things like “you will burn in Hell for denying God,” or “atheists do the devil’s work and will therefore be denied passage into Heaven.” Of course, not every believer is “in your face” like certain fundamentalists just as not all atheists are “in your face” like the so-called militant atheists.

The survey shows that 56% of the respondents believe that non-religious people can go to Heaven while 42% believe that the same "salvation" applies to atheists. Of course, atheists, as they do not believe in Heaven, are not really concerned about the possibility of getting into Heaven. What is intriguing about these findings, though, from an atheistic perspective (or at least from my atheistic perspective) is that this trend may add fuel to the “moral zeitgeist” fire. It is the contention of many atheists that there is a shift in morality occurring across the globe. So, what is “moral zeitgeist?” “Zeitgeist” by itself, as defined on http://www.merriam-webster.com/">webster.com, is “the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era.” Or, as others describe it, “the spirit of the age.” http://www.conservapedia.com/">Conservapedia.com, which seems to have a certain bias built in as one might imagine based on its name, says:

"The Moral Zeitgeist is a term used by atheists to describe the evolution of morality. Proponents of a moral Zeitgeist believe that morality evolved to help what they believe to be our ape-like ancestors survive in large groups as social animals. This theory suggests that moral acceptability is chosen by the masses. As people's view of what is morally right and wrong changes, the moral Zeitgeist is said to "shift." This position is rejected by Creationists and most Christians."

http://www.richarddawkins.net/">Richard Dawkins discusses the idea of a shifting moral zeitgeist in this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ9JMUFIVqE">video. In his book, The God Delusion, to illustrate the shift, Dawkins points out that:

"Slavery, which was taken for granted in the Bible and throughout most of history, was abolished in civilized countries in the nineteenth century. All civilized nations now accept what was widely denied up to the 1920s, that a woman's vote, in an election or on a jury, is the equal of a man's. In today's enlightened societies (a category that manifestly does not include, for example, Saudi Arabia), women are no longer regarded as property, as they clearly were in biblical times."

Another interesting http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm">bit of data that seems to support this notion of a shifting moral zeitgeist comes to us from a recent Gallup poll. Of those polled two-thirds reported that they believe that religion is losing its influence on American life. In the same poll, only 53% of the respondents believe that religion can answer all or most of today’s problems. Other polls have shown similar sentiment. In a poll conducted in April, 2008 by ABC News/Washington Post, when Catholics were asked "Do you think Pope Benedict should maintain the traditional policies of the Church, or should he change Church policies to reflect the attitudes and lifestyles of Catholics today," 45% said that policies should be changed.

There are many signs that point toward a shift in the moral zeitgeist; however, there are people, according to conservapedia.com, who believe that the notion “is simply Atheist avoidance of admitting the power of God.” As you might imagine, atheist would most likely whole-heartedly disagree with that contention regardless of how valid they think the notion of a shifting moral zeitgeist is.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m1d2-Atheists-in-Heaven-Sign-of-shifting-moral-zeitgeist">LINK

- Shifting away from religious morality will save lives....
==============================================================================
DeSwiss


http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox




"Prayer is just a way of telling god that his divine plan for
you is flawed -- and shockingly stingy" ~ Betty Bowers

[Bonn1997]

1. Good!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. Do you have a problem with it?

:shrug:

[DeSwiss]

3. Which it???

:shrug:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. any of it?

:shrug:

[DeSwiss]

5. I wouldn't characterize....

...what I think of the idea of atheists in heaven as a "problem." Nor the idea of the expansion of religious dogma outside their "normal" belief boundaries as a problem, but rather more of a continuation of past practices.

I believe that the evidence shows that all of the Abrahamic religions are products of syncretism. They are the result of the amalgamation and absorption of a variety of religions, and as such give credence to theories having to do with social evolution, of which article is actually in reference to.

What I see here in this polling, is more of an attempt by these 56%ers to cover-over the religious and biblical inconsistencies and deficiencies as it relates to their own modern reason and superior secular morality, than that which can be found within their religious beliefs, by trying to be more inclusive. This way, they can keep the fairy tales even if it is in yet another "abridged edition."

The majority of people on this planet have not evolved sufficiently to exist without their security blankets, made from the threads of religion. They will accept and benefit from reason, but not embrace it fully for fear of ignoring those ancient ideas of reality that were formed in most cases as children. And in this sense, they remain children.

- It is simply another exercise in cognitive dissonance.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. then why the yin/yang avatar?

:shrug:

[DeSwiss]

8. Confused you, did it? :-)

While the symbol of Yin/Yang represents a Eastern philosophical ideal and not necessarily a religious one, for me it is a symbol which best reflects a theory that I've held for sometime now having to do with The Great Dichotomy. Which is itself quite involved and lengthy. I posted an essay on these ideas a few years ago when I had one of those ghastly AOL webpages (before they tore them all down), but I haven't re-posted it anywhere.

But my ideas about dichotomy and symbiosity that the Yin/Yang represents, remain.

- BTW. I love your sigline. I used to have one like it myself a few years back that's similar: "A weed is a plant whose virtues have not yet been realized."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. so then, you cna understand the paradox

of how atheists can be admitted into heaven. You just choose to be a non-believer. Am I understanding you correctly.

and thanks for the compliment on the sigline. My tends to change according to whatever is currently on my mind.

[DeSwiss]

11. Actually, no.

And in point of fact I would go further to say that if any Christian believer accepts the idea that atheists will be in their heaven, then they aren't really Christians. And it certainly isn't written down in the bible that way. Because it is clearly stated in the bible that Jesus said those "who believed in him" would be with him in paradise. So for atheists, this would be an impossibility. Thus there is no paradox. It appears to me that these "theologians" they polled, are making it up as they go. But they do so in the finest traditions of all those who came before them.

As I said upthread, I see the results of this poll as an attempt by "soft religious believers" to rationalize away the idea of perfectly nice atheists, humanists, and secularists (many of whom are probably friends and family members), burning in hell simply because they didn't go to church. It goes against the grain of their modern ideas of morality, which is where religious morality fails miserably. But they must accept these words for to do otherwise only raises questions concerning the legitimacy of all the other words in there.

Because once one expands (and/or lowers) the requirements for salvation and heavenly membership to include people who made no religious sacrifice, said no prayers, tithed no silver or gold, then that would mean that those who have and are still doing so -- are foolish since they could get to heaven on the cheap by just being a nice person.

- Like me!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. My understanding of the book of Revelations

contradicts this...also it is said that in his mansion are many rooms. I think that could be construed to allow room for all. :shrug:

[DeSwiss]

13. I knew that someday....

...being born and bred as a Fundie PK would come in handy. The "mansions" reference you make is from the book of John, where Jesus was about to leave the disciples to go and pray in the Garden of Gethsemane. Peter (he of the quick sword who lopps off ears for his homeboys), wanted to follow him because spies of the Sanhedrin Council wished to kidnap him for his blasphemous preaching (not to mention screwing up their take from the money-changers from that earlier "incident"):

John 13:37 Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. 38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice. 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Here, clearly Jesus' references to "mansions as being within his father's house," if taken literally, would mean houses. And which many religious people to this day, still believe that they'll be living in a mansion in heaven. But I was taught that this incident was in reference to Peter's lack of faith (as with us all), at the critical moment when he would be forced to stand-up and declare his beliefs and his faith. Although at the time Peter could not envision himself denying his Christ, and yet as the story says, he did. So here Jesus was referring to those who had accepted and believed in him, and yet failed and denied him at some later point, that they would ultimately be given their "place" in heaven because the sacrifice he knew he was to make on mankind's behalf, assured this -- for those who believed in him to begin with.

To expand "many mansions" in such a way that incorporates those of different faiths or no faith, based upon their placid and agreeable existence in this plane, obviates and undermines the whole point of Christianity. And turns it into mush.

Others have also opined that Jesus' reference was totally in-keeping with the astrological underpinnings of this religion since it was http://www.breadwithcircus.com/vid-zeitgeist.html">based upon the constellations in the first place. Just as the Zodiac signs refer to the House of Gemini, or the House of Aries, these are the mansions within the heavens that Jesus referred to. There are other points of connection to the Zodiac with in this line of investigation you can find http://www.pocm.info/">here.

Turning away from the subject of heavenly real estate, and going onto your other point about Revelations, for me I can only say that one should consider the source. In fact, I say that about the entirety of the bible itself. Once one researches and examines the provenance of biblical stories, one will find that much of the bible (the old and the new), are plagiarized versions of much earlier stories handed down throughout ancient history. So Revelations, like all of its earlier component parts of the NT cannot be utilized as any kind of moral guide, but rather as a revised edition of earlier myths and tales.

- And nothing more....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. alright then...

My philosophy on all this is really simple. God is all. All is God. In this way we are already there.

Going back to the flawed Bible (I will not argue that concept)it is mentioned that God will battle Satan and will win and all will be "ascended unto Heaven".

So, perhaps Atheists will go to Hell first.

I don't know. I don't sweat the small stuff and, to me pretty much everything is small stuff :shrug:

Then again, I worry about keeping a roof over my head and food in my mouth, so really, what do I know :)

[DeSwiss]

15. Your philosophy....

...and mine are "simpatico." ;)

I simply refuse to use, acknowledge or accept weighted terms such as "god" which is nothing more than an anthropomorphized deity. In fact, this is the one area where I simply hate using labels because they tend to freeze concepts into place when the whole idea of creativity being frozen is ludicrous. Its dynamic and ever-changing. So we can never say what something "is," because in the next moment, it will be something else. For example, on the day I split the egg the first time, not a single cell from that moment still physically exists, and yet I'm the same being. Right?

What many call god, I refer to as All That Is. I don't try to qualify, nor quantify that. I can't define what it is, because its everything. I can't understand it any more or less than I understand myself and life in-general. Because, its all that too.

I also understand that humans became convinced of the idea that they needed to understand what god is and what s/he wants, because of their FEARS of things unknown. Natural phenomena were explained and rationalized as acts of some kind of god because as far as ancient man knew, that was the most likely explanation. This is how religion got its leg up then, and how it maintains its position now: THROUGH FEAR.

If someone were to ask me (and few have), I'd say that the point of our existence can only be discerned from what we see and know. And what we see and know is that CREATIVITY abounds all around us and is a continuous process. And that all of it -- no matter what form it takes -- is just a jumble of atoms thrown together. What Carl Sagan called "star stuff."

And so the point of our existence: is to just "be." Because what else can "beings" do, except be? To mimic CREATIVITY means to grow, to adapt, to expand and to learn, and to become something else. More than what we now are. Just as we see in nature. It means to seek and try to achieve symbiosity (the 'ol Yin/Yang again), just as we find it in nature. So the examples of "what it all means" are all around us and is the most likely reason why we ignore them.

Because that couldn't be the answer. Right?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZVRpqm0Cl0">''A SHORT LIST OF GODS''

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. We are different sides of the same coin, yes. While you refuse,

I accept :toast:

to be in harmony with our surroundings, yes. to love, honor and respect ALL because ALL is God and God is ALL. Alpha and Omega.

Pretty much how I see it. Tonight, anyway :shrug:

[PassingFair]

19. Atheism IS acceptance.

We accept that we do not know.

We strive to learn all we can
about our natural world.

Faith is the opposite of acceptance.

[DeSwiss]

25. Exactlty.

- And what it not known may in fact be "super" natural (meaning laws of nature about phenomena which lie beyond our understanding at a given time), but it is not god simply because we can't comprehend its nature or how it may function within laws of nature that we do understand.

[Nihil]

32. Nice post ...

... especially these bits:
> What many call god, I refer to as All That Is. I don't try to qualify,
> nor quantify that. I can't define what it is, because its everything.
> I can't understand it any more or less than I understand myself and
> life in-general. Because, its all that too.

> And so the point of our existence: is to just "be." Because what else
> can "beings" do, except be? To mimic CREATIVITY means to grow, to adapt,
> to expand and to learn, and to become something else. More than what
> we now are. Just as we see in nature.

These paragraphs ring true to me too but you have written them better
than I have done in the past.

Thanks.

:toast:

[DeSwiss]

34. You are very welcome!

[sakabatou]

7. Conservapedia?

LMAO.

[DeSwiss]

9. Yeah, I saw that!!!

:rofl:

[Meshuga]

17. There is religious morality based on religious belief...

...Where the believer might think these beliefs are universal facts and everyone should follow the same philosophy. And there is religious morality based solely on religious tradition which is a transformation of some religions and sects of religions as a consequence of enlightenment.

In my own perception, many liberal Christians follow the bible as in "following Jesus as an ethical teacher" but the belief in the afterlife and the spiritual component that is followed by these same liberal followers can also be attributed to (and not limited to) parental, cultural, and societal upbringing, not necessarily in the literal belief in parts of scripture as in the proposed contradiction that liberal believers nitpick parts of the bible and set them as allegorical while setting other parts as literal.

There are "moral formulas" out there (from religious and non-religious sources) and people choose the formula they believe is best for them to implement in their own lives not necessary thinking it is the best universal formula for everyone.

Religious belief losing influence on American life is a good thing since belief should be kept to the individual as opposed to being imposed. And the belief that religion can answer all or most of today's problems is also troubling because of the same imposition. The claim that religion is the one and only answer to a good life is bullshit. But again, I don't see a problem when a person believes that a set of religious moral teachings is a good formula for him/herself to follow in trying to be a better human being. You know, each to their own.

[DeSwiss]

26. Excellently put!

- As always...

[MineralMan]

18. Any atheist who cares about this

isn't really an atheist. Heaven? No such place.

[PassingFair]

20. No evidence ...

for such a place.

Big difference.

[MineralMan]

21. Yes, that is the difference between

agnosticism and atheism. There is no heaven. There are no deities or other supernatural entities of that type.

You're right that there is no evidence of them. That is because they do not exist, except in the minds of those who decide to believe in the supernatural.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a questioning.

[PassingFair]

22. Lack of belief is not...

a belief in nothing.

I don't "believe" in "heaven", and X-tians don't "believe" in the "Elysian Fields".

We are both "without belief".


I don't personally see a difference
between the words atheist and agnostic.

Neither worship a deity.

I say agnostic in public because it
is more acceptable to believers than
atheist.

I self-identify as an atheist, because
colloquially, agnostic sound wishy-washy.

[MineralMan]

23. Semantics...

I'm an atheist, not an agnostic. I'm always happy to tell people who ask about religion that I'm an atheist. I don't tell them, otherwise.

Normally, it gets little reaction. For the few cases where it does, I just say that I don't believe in any sort of supernatural stuff like gods and heavens and hells. That usually ends it. When it doesn't, I give 'em a blank stare and stop talking, then find something else to do.

Religious stuff is personal. I don't care what anyone believes or doesn't believe. If they bother me with it, they're just being rude, and I don't have a lot of time for rude people. If they try to force me to follow their supernaturalist stuff, I leave. If they try to keep me from leaving, I do get a bit testy.

[PassingFair]

24. Semantics, indeed!

:hi:

[DeSwiss]

27. While I don't apply the label...

...of atheist to myself (nor agnostic, but both are much closer to my own conceptions than any other designations), I would agree that in the grand scheme of things it would most likely be of little interest to many. Although I most certainly agree with your point about the idea of a "heaven" being nonsensical. Because I have concluded that this heaven idea is nothing more than another form of anthropomorphizing reality to "fit" what is known and comfortable. These ideas lie within the realm of most people's understanding since its what most have been taught, so they stick with it as much as they can.

However, from the standpoint of watching religionists grapple with their religion, and seeing how it rubs up against and irritates their own sense of modern morality and justice, it becomes interesting (at least to me) in the extreme. The reason being that I believe it will most likely be that just as Christianity was not wholly adopted and unequivocally accepted at its beginnings, it will very likely and slowly devolve and come apart in the face of rationality -- over time. I see this "inclusion" of atheists into heaven as a sign of this.

So maybe what I am seeing in these polling numbers of the 56%ers who believe that people of other faiths and even atheists will be in their heaven, is in fact an indication of the slow conversion of religionists over to reason -- while placing less and less emphasis on the place of religion as a moral guide in their lives. And yet, they can't totally separate themselves completely from it, and must have their rituals, and their icons and all the other familiar things that they've grown accustomed to over many, many years, with them as they travel through this new land called Rationality. A land where they must discover their answers for themselves. Rather than to simply accept the pre-packaged answers that they've been given since childhood.

[elshiva]

28. HAHAAHA! Great picture!

I think BOTH conservative and liberal Christian Cherry Pick proof texts. That's the problem with the Bible, you can make it support almost anything.

[DeSwiss]

29. Well, if you liked that one.....

...then you'll love these as well!

[elshiva]

30. Oh, I love the FSM! Thank you.

[Taverner]

31. Well God IS Dead

:)

[DeSwiss]

33. And good riddance!

[jody]

35. Mat 25:31-46, Jesus gathers all peoples and separates them into two groups. Those who practice the

Golden Rule go to heaven whether Christian or nor.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

[DeSwiss]

36. And which would mean that the "Golden Rule" prescription...

...preceded Jesus by hundreds, if not a thousand or more years. Which doesn't quite explain how others who preceded him, were in actuality laying the groundwork for his ministry and special brand of religiosity.

Of course one only has to remember that the Christians were not then nor are they now, averse to pilfering the words and thoughts of others, in addition to co-opting whole chunks of pagan religious tales that preceded them by thousands of years as well. The whole of Christianity is based upon pagan religion, so this is not surprising.

And then one should also remember that Jesus was reputed to have said this:



And this....


- Do unto to others, indeed....