Belief in heaven is fundamental to being a Christian, views on accountability are not fundamental to atheism. I would say that my position is that I am accountable for my actions to my fellow humans and that is where I draw moral responsibility from.

You've given no argument against the premises, you've simply repeatedly stated how rude and irritating it is for anyone to question your motivation. This is not conducive to mutual understanding.

You constantly misstate and shift the discussion to try to morph my comments into something you can refute.


But this is not what you said. You said:

Theism and Christianity are not synonymous. If you had said Christians, my reply would have been structured differently.


I would say that my opinions are drawn from something quite different from the Christian concept of Heaven. But you did not ask that. You simply told me why I had my opinions, then objected to my being unsatisfied with that.

Repeatedly? I think I only said that once.

You have constantly misstated or changed my comments to make them suitable to refute. Is that because my actual statements are beyond your capability to refute? If not, why not focus on what I said rather than on what you wish I had said?

Seriously, if there is anything that is a barrier to understanding, it is your behavior.

Is courage being fearless in a frightful situation? Is it being fearful but acting anyways? Can a coward do a courageous act? How is he a coward then? Please refer to my example of the boxer Ali.

I'm not sure any Christian believes god does any such action as 'raising'

Its not negative thinking, it may be wrong and dark but negative is the wrong word. But I will agree with you its incorrect.

I fyp to something I think you will still agree with


What you don't know yet is if you doubt anything you create boundaries that deny god. I can clearly show this.

Atheists and Christians are the same to me. Not sure what you mean here.

But 2 Christians disagree on right and wrong. I'll agree with the bibles teachings, but forever disagree with humans interpretation of them. Christians don't agree with whats right and wrong, they disagree, then they teach there children their own version and judge people on the that. Thus the bible is correct but the paradox of how to teach right and wrong remains unsolved.

Please do.

1. I'm not an atheist.

2. Again, I understand why it can be irritating if people say things along the lines of "everyone who believes in a soul or an afterlife does so because they fear death and annihilation".

3. That said, I don't think you are engaging with the point. It's a cop-out to say "well I can't read anyone's miind". Religion is a social phenomenon, which can be judged the same way other social phenomena are judged. When a majority of rich people vote for tax cuts on the rich, do you say "I don't know why a majority of rich people would vote that way, I don't know what their motivations are"? I don't. I think I have some idea of what the motivations are.

Now note, I DID NOT say that every rich person who votes for lower taxes on the rich is simply concerned about lowering their personal tax bill. I can't make that claim. But the idea that there's no way to say anything about this phenomenon at all, as a general matter, seems quite wrong to me.

I might add that at least some theists I have spoken to are, in fact, quite concerned about what happens when we die and are unabashed about that being one reason for their faith. So it isn't as though the ONLY evidence I have for this claim is some speculation about motives anyway.

I will say it again-- isn't it clear that one reason why myths about the afterlife and souls persist is because some people have a very hard time with the concept of ceasing to exist after they die?

When I was a very young child, I had an episode where I almost drowned in the Pacific Ocean off of Malibu. I still remember it to this day-- it is one of my earliest memories.

And even though I basically had no existential grounding whatsoever at the time, I remember fearing that I was going to die.

I've gone back through all our exchanges in this thread and I genuinely don't see what you are talking about. Lawdude pretty much sums up the points I've tried to raise and maybe you'll be less hostile to a non-atheist so I'm done with this.

Oh, and the only reason I moved from theism to Christianity is so we'd both be speaking from experience and not get bogged down in alternative post-death beliefs in some of the more obscure (to me, anyway) religions. Swap out "Christanity" for "theism" and "heaven" for "the afterlife" and it's the same as the original statement.

This can be slightly wrong, you are suggesting A causes B. But A and B can be interdependent and caused by C.

This means B doesn't exist without A, but A isn't proved to be the cause.

I didn't say easily though You have to eliminate all 'doubt's or rather all beliefs or assumptions, then you will see with a fresh mind, that any movement or belief (which a doubt is a belief), takes you a way from the 'truth' or what is called God. Now a Christian will disagree but they haven't started from a a center of 'no belief'.

Atheists are not 'no belief's' people they have conditioning and beliefs, but are unaware of them.

This is mostly instinctive fear, which is not the same psychological fear that is associated with the after life. But no doubt some of your fear was religious as your parents already started your conditioning.

We can't properly talk about 'fear' until we see the difference between instinctive fear of dying and religious fear of dying.

Faith and life is a growth process. Kids aren't the only ones that do it.

Christianity is about spiritual growth. But a lot of adults fool themselves into thinking they're done growing and substitute reasoning in it's place.

What's courage? Some encyclopedic thoughts to meditate on here about it:


Courage (also bravery, boldness, fearlessness, mettle, fortitude, or intrepidity) is the ability to confront fear, pain, danger, uncertainty, or intimidation. "Physical courage" is courage in the face of physical pain, hardship, death, or threat of death, while "moral courage" is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, or discouragement.

Theories of courage

Western antiquity and Middle Ages

As a [desirable] quality, courage is discussed broadly in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, where its vice of shortage is cowardice and its vice of excess is recklessness. 'live life not without fear, but with gallantry against it' : Christian L J Silver

In Roman Catholicism, courage is referred to as "Fortitude" as one of the four cardinal virtues, along with prudence, justice, and temperance. ("Cardinal" in this sense means "pivotal"; it is one of the four cardinal virtues because to possess any virtue, a person must be able to sustain it in the face of difficulty.) This is well expressed by Maya Angelou:


Courage is the most important of the virtues, because without courage you can't practice any other virtue consistently. You can practice any virtue erratically, but nothing consistently without courage.

Or this insight from Winston Churchill:


Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities ... because it is the quality that guarantees all others.

In both Catholicism and Anglicanism, courage is also one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Eastern traditions

The Tao Te Ching states that courage is derived from love ("慈 loving 故 causes 能 ability 勇 brave") and explains: "One of courage, with audacity, will die. One of courage, but gentle, spares death. From these two kinds of courage arise harm and benefit."[3][4]

Courage (shauriya) and Patience (dhairya) appear as the first two of ten characteristics (lakshana) of dharma in the Hindu Manusmṛti, besides forgiveness (kshama), tolerance (dama), honesty (asthaya), physical restraint (indriya nigraha), cleanliness (shouchya), perceptiveness (dhi), knowledge (vidhya), truthfulness (satya), and control of anger (akrodh).


Islamic beliefs also present courage and self-control as a key factor in facing the Devil and in some cases Jihad to a lesser extent; many believe this because of the courage (through peace and patience) the Prophets of the past displayed against people who despised them for their beliefs.

Modernity

Business magnate Andrew Carnegie provided his perspective in his quote, "The person who goes farthest is generally the one who is willing to do and dare. The sure-thing boat never gets far from shore."

Søren Kierkegaard opposed courage to angst, while Paul Tillich opposed an existential courage to be to non-being, fundamentally equating it with religion:
"Courage is the self-affirmation of being in spite of the fact of non-being. It is the act of the individual self in taking the anxiety of non-being upon itself by affirming itself ... in the anxiety of guilt and condemnation. ... every courage to be has openly or covertly a religious root. For religion is the state of being grasped by the power of being itself."

J.R.R. Tolkien identified in his 1936 lecture "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" a "Northern 'theory of courage'"—the heroic or "virtuous pagan" insistence to do the right thing even in the face of certain defeat without promise of reward or salvation:



“

It is the strength of the northern mythological imagination that it faced this problem, put the monsters in the centre, gave them victory but no honor, and found a potent and terrible solution in naked will and courage. 'As a working theory absolutely impregnable.' So potent is it, that while the older southern imagination has faded forever into literary ornament, the northern has power, as it were, to revive its spirit even in our own times. It can work, as it did even with the goðlauss Viking, without gods: martial heroism as its own end.

”


Virtuous pagan heroism or courage in this sense is "trusting in your own strength," as observed by Jacob Grimm in his Teutonic Mythology,



“

Men who, turning away in utter disgust and doubt from the heathen faith, placed their reliance on their own strength and virtue. Thus in the Sôlar lioð 17 we read of Vêbogi and Râdey â sik þau trûðu, "in themselves they trusted"

”


Ernest Hemingway famously defined courage as "grace under pressure."

Civil courage

Main article: Good Samaritan law

Civil courage (sometimes also referred to as "Social courage") is defined by many different standards. In general, the term is usually referred to when civilians stand up against something that is deemed unjust and evil, knowing that the consequences of their action might lead to their death, injury or some other form of significant harm.

In some countries (e.g. France and Germany civil courage (Duty to rescue) is enforced by law under certain circumstances; this generally excludes assistance that would endanger the person who is offering it.

Symbolism

Its accompanying animal is the lion. Often, Fortitude is depicted as having tamed the ferocious lion. Cf. e.g. the Tarot trump called Strength. It is sometimes seen in the Catholic Church as a depiction of Christ's triumph over sin (see Revelation 5:5). It also is a symbol in some cultures as a savior of the people who live in a community with sin and corruption.

Awards

Several awards claim to recognize courageous actions, including:
The Victoria Cross is the highest military award that may be received by members of the armed forces in the British Army and other Commonwealth countries for valour "in the face of the enemy." A total of 1,356 have been awarded to individuals, 13 since World War II.

The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government. It is bestowed on members of the United States armed forces who distinguish themselves "conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States”.

Distinguished Service Cross (United States) is the second highest military decoration that can be awarded to a member of the United States Army, awarded for extreme gallantry and risk of life in actual combat with an armed enemy force.

The Carnegie Hero Fund - was established to recognize persons who perform extraordinary acts of heroism in civilian life in the United States and Canada, and to provide financial assistance for those disabled and the dependents of those killed saving or attempting to save others.

The Profile in Courage Award is a private award given to recognize displays of courage similar to those John F. Kennedy described in his book Profiles in Courage. It is given to individuals (often elected officials) who, by acting in accord with their conscience, risked their careers or lives by pursuing a larger vision of the national, state or local interest in opposition to popular opinion or pressure from constituents or other local interests.

The Civil Courage Prize is a human rights award which is awarded to "steadfast resistance to evil at great personal risk — rather than military valor." It is awarded by the Trustees of The Train Foundation annually and may be awarded posthumously.

Courage to Care Award is a plaque with miniature bas-reliefs depicting the backdrop for the rescuers’ exceptional deeds during the Nazis’ persecution, deportation and murder of millions of Jews.

The Ivan Allen Jr. Prize for Social Courage is a prize awarded by Georgia Institute of Technology to individuals who uphold the legacy of former Atlanta Mayor Ivan Allen Jr., whose actions in Atlanta, Georgia and testimony before congress in support of the 1963 Civil Rights Bill legislation set a standard for courage during the turbulent civil rights era of the 1960s.

As a strength in psychology

From the end of the twentieth century, courage has been a concept generating interest in the field of psychology. In 2004, Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman’s book, Character Strengths and Virtues proposed a uniform way of classifying positive traits that highlight the elements of humanity that uplift humanity, Courage being among the key virtues. In addition, Seligman and Peterson founded the Virtues in Action (VIA) Institute and created the VIA survey which hope to bring this uniform categorization of human strengths to the masses. The VIA classifies human strengths in six, broad categories: Wisdom and Knowledge, Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance, Transcendence. Courage is broken down into four main subcategories: Bravery, Perseverance, Honesty, and Zest.

Bravery

Bravery is the subcategory most people generally associate with Courage. It is defined as “the ability to stand up for what is right in difficult situations.” As opposed to less sophisticated definitions that simply categorize bravery as fearlessness or acting when an observer would be afraid. There are several forms of this bravery. Physical bravery involves acting in spite of possible harm to one’s body. Moral bravery involves acting in a way that enhances what one believes to be good in spite of social disapproval and possible backlash. A third, theoretically newer, definition of bravery is psychological bravery which involves things such as overcoming one’s own addictive habits, irrational anxieties, and harmful dependent relationships. Psychological bravery means acting against one’s own natural inclinations and facing fears which might not have any societal moral implications. Bravery works well as a virtue in the VIA classification system because it is highly regarded across cultures and has obvious benefits for those surrounded by brave people. Possible problems with viewing bravery as a classifiable human strength is that it could be argued that bravery is not trait-like since it only comes out under certain circumstances. The counterargument to this claim is that bravery is trait-like in the same way creativity is considered a trait; both appear only in certain situations.The VIA claims that it is a positive psychological trait that can be found and cultivated in certain individuals.

Perseverance

Perseverance falls under the larger category of courage because it often involves continuing along a path in the midst of and after having faced opposition and perhaps failure. Perseverance involves the ability to seek a goal in spite of obstacles and has been shown in human and animal studies to be a lasting trait with individual differences. In order to persevere at a task, a person must be able to suppress desires to give up and pursue an easier task, a metacognitive understanding that the ends justify the persevering means. But beyond meta cognition, a person high in perseverance is able to overcome low self-esteem and estimations that one cannot do the task as well as discouragement from peers and the desire to present oneself well. As a categorical psychological strength, perseverance is regarded highly by society as opposed to laziness. However, its one weakness as an entry on the VIA as noted by Peterson and Seligman is that it may not be discernible from other human strengths and virtues. It especially can be seen as overlapping with self-control. However Peterson and Seligman maintain its distinctiveness, pointing out that perseverance “is explicitly shown across time, whereas control and regulation of oneself have a more here-and-now flavor”. More research needs to be done in this area to empirically show that perseverance belongs in its own distinct category.

Honesty

As defined by positive psychologists, honesty and authenticity as a subset of courage means more than simply telling the truth. It involves integrity in all areas of one’s life and the ability to be true to oneself and one’s role in the world across circumstances. Though perhaps one would not immediately associate honesty with courage, there are obvious situations in life where to be honest and authentic requires a great deal of strength in the midst of fear. The positive view societies have of honesty can be seen from the fact that it is something people try to develop in young children and adolescents. While all people seem to grow in their understanding of the moral importance of honest and integrity as they grow older, there are certain individuals who seem to especially excel in this human strength. This trait is important in many areas of life, so much so that many measurements have been developed in an effort to identify especially honest individuals. These measurements test both overt honesty, the thoughts one has about blatant dishonesty such as stealing, and covert honesty, which is very similar to conscientiousness and dependability. Of all the subcategories under courage in the VIA, Honesty shows the most promise as a distinct, well defined area of classification.

Zest

Of the four categories involved in courage, zest or vitality, is the one that has the most weaknesses as a classification. It is defined as, “feeling alive, being full of zest, and displaying enthusiasm for any and all activities”. This is a category that is influenced not only by subjective psychological factors, but also objective factors affecting one’s physical well-being such as chronic pain. The reason Peterson and Seligman group Zest together with other courageous virtues is that Zest most often comes forth as a character strength in the midst of trying circumstances. For example, it has been shown that people’s subjective perception of their situation when faced with chronic pain, judging their perceived ability to handle the situation and their general positivity, is able to influence their well-being. This zest can be shown to be trait-like across situations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage

Are you a theist, agnostic or atheist?

That was easy enough. Well said. And of truth.

OK. I stand corrected.

I edited this. I was sure I had seen a post by you that put you into the atheist category in my mind. I was able to find it.

In the usage of "atheist" on this site, this would fall into the category of an agnostic atheist. I am willing to be corrected but to be "not an atheist" requires some affirmative statement of belief that there is a God. Basically the test is: "I believe there is a God". (T or F). If T then theist, if false then atheist. I also realize that these definitions are mutable. Both Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein specifically denied being atheists, but they are claimed as atheists by that group in this forum.

No problem here.


The statement to which I objected was a sweeping generalization. I mentioned that I found it irritating, which seems to cause a lot of heartburn, even for people who seem to understand that it is irritating. Why the problem with the statement?

All one need do is slightly modify the statement and it is unassailable.

"Some theists hold the belief because..."

"One very plausible explanation for belief in the afterlife is..."

Why not make a statement that is defensible if not incontrovertible rather than one that is obviously overstated and therefore incorrect?

Why is it such a sin to call attention to the inaccuracy?

Concerning your bold statement, if that was the original statement then I never would have objected. But note the italicized words. Those change the meaning.

I could express that a little differently.

We can't properly talk about 'fear' until we see the difference between our natural, instinctive survival impulse and the "fear of death" that psychologically arises and evolves from that into many different forms.

It will take some time before you are able to understand what I 'am' but I doubt these words or any you could mention would describe it.


I will try to cover as much as I can and know about, I haven't immersed myself far into the Hindu/Indian religion etc. but I know some about it through Bruce Lees notes.

We know out of the religions today and the beliefs people have in them that they cannot all be correct at the same time. I believe they can be, but people who practice them do not. Therefore we cannot site religious text from different religions together.

It is my opinion though that all these religions took parts of truth and mixed them with misinterpretations. So someone says 'this' is correct in the bible therefore the entire bible is correct. This is the issue with citing religious text.

You sited an encyclopedia, but it is indifferent to religion which isn't correct if religion is correct. It assumes atheism, well thats not the correct word but you understand we have to solve the issues of belief before we can say the encyclopedia is not biased.

Romans were corrupt, Catholicism was corrupt, the teaching may have some truth be we cannot site them as we know these groups were full of self serving peoples.

The tao te ching I know very well, so we can explore this discussion easiest in that view point, and I could prob show you where it supports me. However we have to realize that the words are subject to interpretation, and corruption through the ages (it could be a conspiracy itself), as well as translation errors.

The Hindu words you suggest are closest, but understand somewhere they will tell say that immense courage coming from the wrong source is cowardice, that means that you have to center yourself properly first or 'real' courage doesn't exist. Maybe that helps you understand what I mean.

Tolkien's novels and ideals are rooted in many of the texts referred to above, and his stories also come from applications by corrupt humans.

Military awards are based on corruption.

As for the VIA that classifies, classification gets further from the real definition of courage.

yes that seems fair.

Bruce Lee is an authority on courage or just somebody you admire?

Is an authority if i am correct here....

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...78/?highlight=

None of the above is the answer for everyone. DUCY?

Hint:

Yes exactly, I don't know the meaning of the 3 categories but I assumed as much.

No worries under universalism you can be wrong and get eternal life.

My parents never discussed religion with me. To this day I do not know whether or what they believe.

You say this because you believe democracy is not a religious belief (likely)

conditioning is the false dogma and more than just our parents instill it in us.

RLK:

I have no idea whether there is a god or gods. I don't think that fits any accurate definition of atheism.

I don't recall ever discussing democracy with them either.

At any rate, you are venturing towards the silly here. I did not experience the fear of death as socially conditioned. Indeed, there's plenty of evidence that animals fear death too (and there's a theoretical reason for that in evolutionary biology). But also, I suspect the first time I was even vaguely aware of the concept that some people were religious was probably in the third or fourth grade. It just wasn't part of my life growing up. It's a stretch to argue that it was having some subliminal effect on me anyway.