Question:
If you are an atheist, briefly state your convictions, I'm serious know.?
Ace of Spades
2008-04-07 12:24:40 UTC
One of my atheist friends stated that many of us don't live what we preach. I afraid she was right. She stated her other reasons, but this woke me up. I've known her since we were in grammar school.
28 answers:
Sir N. Neti
2008-04-07 12:51:51 UTC
These are (some of) my convictions:



1.) Do only that which is right. You are the ideal judge of what that is.



2.) Self-esteem is the ultimate power.



3.) Never be afraid to admit when you have misunderstood.



4.) Most people have far too low an opinion of themselves. This makes them guilty and insecure.



5.) Assume the best about yourself and other people. Your experience of some individuals may prove different, but people in general are all good and all mean well. Nobody TRIES to do what they know is wrong.



6.)The problem with evil is that it lures you into trying to eradicate it. You cannot get peace out of a gun.



7.) The word "should" has no place in our language. If you replace it with "want to," you'll be much happier (as long as you don't lie to yourself).
2008-04-07 12:28:50 UTC
I found that things I had been taught to expect out of Atheism were infact not at all true.



I have incredible conviction now that I have rejected belief in God. My newfound understanding, allows me to approach humanity with true kindness and honest evaluation.



I am convicted by social morality to live a good life, help those around me, and most of all to be honest about where I place my trust.



While I was a believer, I was forced by biblical prediction to expect the worst out of the world and humanity and to expect a disastrous future. This expectation, caused me to view the world in a negative manner, only seeing the bad parts of humanity, because they supported my expectation of evil in mankind. Now that I no longer believe in Jesus and his imminent return with fiery sword, I can see that I was tremendously mistaken about humanity. Even in horribly poor parts of the world, mankind is generally good and will more often choose to give of themselves for others.
2008-04-07 12:30:23 UTC
I believe humanity is inherently good when given the chance to develop without adverse circumstances.



I believe that I should only say what I mean.



I believe that I have no right or interest in telling everyone else how to live, so long as they return the favor.



I believe that there is no problem that cannot be solved by icecream, WD-40 or duct tape.
neil s
2008-04-07 12:33:28 UTC
"God" has never been defined in any way that is intelligible. All attempts have either been obvious anthropomorphizations with contradictory characteristics, or simply self contradictory on logical terms alone. Someone may say "God is beyond logic" but language isn't, and therefore anyone hold that position should have nothing else to say about "God".



Now, since we have no intelligible definition of "God'', "God" is not yet even a word. Therefore, the proposition "There is no being called 'God'" is simply true. QED
Veggie
2008-04-07 12:35:21 UTC
Well as an avid non-believer in anything, I must say I believe in nothing. Haha. Atheists don't live by religious rules or what the bible deems to be correct, but rather their own moral ideals. Besides the bible tends to contradict itself. Example: It says 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' but it also says to 'love thy neighbor'. Now you can't exactly get revenge on someone whilst loving them, can you? People should believe in whatever, whoever they want as long as they keep it to themselves.
2008-04-07 12:36:55 UTC
I don't know about convictions , but my morals are one hundred percent loyalty to family and country , complete honesty , truthfulness , dependability , helpfulness , etc . I take pride in the above . My religious friends respect me for it , but can't understand it . They have the stupid idea that morals come from religion , not civilization .
2008-04-07 12:28:47 UTC
I don't have any convictions. I try to obey the law and stay out of trouble. Now if you want to know what I believe in that would encompass love, compassion, understanding, peace and joy.

--atheist
2008-04-07 12:32:37 UTC
For me, it's about consistency. Actions speak louder than words, but words hurt more in the long run. So I believe in being careful with my words and thoughtful with my actions. When I condemn something, there is good reason, not arbitrary reason. In other words, I understand WHY I think something is harmful, and can explain it in no uncertain terms.
Angela B
2008-04-07 12:29:05 UTC
The fact that there is no evidence to support the existence of any deity is pretty much the only thing we all agree on.
Power
2008-04-07 12:29:58 UTC
Convictions as in what you are guilty of? I would like to answer but don't understand you question.
marbledog
2008-04-07 12:29:41 UTC
People should help one another.

People should not hurt one another.

If we want to make good decisions about our future, we need reliable information.

The best methods we have of acquiring reliable information are the scientific method of inquiry and logical reasoning.



That's it.
Take it from Toby
2008-04-07 12:28:04 UTC
My non-belief in God doesn't have any dictation to how I should live my life. You can't practice what you preach when you don't preach.
Demopublican
2008-04-07 12:30:28 UTC
I have never been convicted of anything. Nor am I a preacher.
2008-04-07 12:28:00 UTC
I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for, but one of my main philosophies in life is to contribute to the universe and do what you can to not detract from it.
2008-04-07 12:32:12 UTC
I believe in chocolate but it lets me down by bieng unhealthy
darwinsfriend3 AM
2008-04-07 12:31:43 UTC
I don't have any convictions,the judge dismissed the case.
t_rex_is_mad
2008-04-07 12:28:32 UTC
I'm convinced that there are no gods and that most who believe in gods don't act as they preach.



Other than that you'd have to be more specific.
What? Me Worry?
2008-04-07 12:28:17 UTC
There is insufficient empirical evidence to support the hypothesis of a god or gods.
2008-04-07 12:27:48 UTC
atheists dont share common goals or convictions

atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods.....thats it...nothing more to it than that



so each individual is gonna have their own repsonses, and that in no way reflects atheism, because atheism is not an ideology
Bob L
2008-04-07 12:27:56 UTC
our convictions are obtained by fact, not empty promises by some ancient book written by jewish goat herders
2008-04-07 12:32:10 UTC
I have a conviction for speeding, that's about it.
2008-04-07 12:26:45 UTC
Convictions about what?
2008-04-07 12:27:28 UTC
I was acquitted of that charge in Missouri in '66.



They said I was a real lady killer.
2008-04-07 12:28:37 UTC
I lack belief in any gods.
Fred
2008-04-07 12:28:59 UTC
I have none. My record is clean. How about you?
2008-04-07 12:28:03 UTC
God does not exist.
2008-04-07 12:29:12 UTC
i don't preach.
quantumrift
2008-04-07 12:34:01 UTC
Fear. Fear of finding God.



After all, there are only TWO kinds of people in this world: Those that fear God, and those that FEAR FINDING God.



Neil S, above, completely ignores St. Thomas Aquinas' writings on the existence of God, so I'll give you a link here and you can see that Neil S is full of crap...





Life



The birth-year of Thomas Aquinas is commonly given as 1227, but he was probably born early in 1225 at his father's castle of Roccasecea (75 m. e.s.e. of Rome) in Neapolitan territory. He died at the monastery of Fossanova, one mile from Sonnino (64 m. s.e. of Rome), Mar. 7, 1274. His father was Count Landulf of an old high-born south Italian family, and his mother was Countess Theodora of Theate, of noble Norman descent. In his fifth year he was sent for his early education to the monastery of Monte Cassino, where his father's brother Sinibald was abbot. Later he studied in Naples. Probably in 1243 he determined to enter the Dominican order; but on the way to Rome he was seized by his brothers and brought back to his parents at the castle of S. Giovanni, where he was held a captive for a year or two and besieged with prayers, threats, and even sensual temptation to make him relinquish his purpose. Finally the family yielded and the order sent Thomas to Cologne to study under Albertus Magnus, where he arrived probably toward the end of 1244. He accompanied Albertus to Paris in 1245, remained there with his teacher, continuing his studies for three years, and followed Albertus at the latter's return to Cologne in 1248. For several years longer he remained with the famous philosopher of scholasticism, presumably teaching. This long association of Thomas with the great polyhistor was the most important influence in his development; it made him a comprehensive scholar and won him permanently for the Aristotelian method. In 1252 probably Thomas went to Paris for the master's degree, which he found some difficulty in attaining owing to attacks, at that time on the mendicant orders. Ultimately, however, he received the degree and entered ceremoniously Upon his office of teaching in 1257; he taught in Paris for several years and there wrote certain of his works and began others. In 1259 he was present at an important chapter of his order at Valenciennes, At the solicitation of Pope Urban IV. (therefore not before the latter part of 1261), he took up his residence in Rome. In 1269-71 he was again active in Paris. In 1272 the provincial chapter at Florence empowered him to found a new studium generale at such place as he should choose, and he selected Naples. Early in 1274 the pope directed Mm to attend the Council of Lyons and he undertook the journey, although he was far from well. On the way he stopped at the castle of a niece and there became seriously ill. He wished to end his days in a monastery and not being able to reach a house of the, Dominicans he was carried to the Cistercian Fossanova. There, first, after his death, his remains were preserved.

Back to Table of Contents



Writings



The writings of Thomas may be classified as, (1) exegetical, homiletical, and liturgical; (2) dogmatic, apologetic, and ethical; and (3) philosophical. Among the genuine works of the first class were: Commentaries on Job (1261-65); on Psalms, according to some a reportatum, or report of oral deliverances furnished by his companion Raynaldus; on Isaiah; the Catena aurea, which is a running commentary on the four Gospels, constructed on numerous citations from the Fathers; probably a Commentary on Canticles, and on Jeremiah; and wholly or partly reportata, on John, on Matthew, and on the epistles of Paul, including, according to one authority, Hebrews i.-x. Thomas prepared for Urban IV., Officium de corpore Christi (1264); and the following works may be either genuine or reportata: Expositio angelicce salutationis; Tractatus de decem praeceptis; Orationis dominico expositio; Sermones pro dominicis diebus et pro sanctorum solemnitatibus; Sermones de angelis, and Sermones de quadragesima. Of his sermons only manipulated copies are extant. In the second division were: In quatitor sententiarum libros, of his first Paris sojourn; Questiones disputatce, written at Paris and Rome; Questiones quodlibetales duodecini; Summa catholicce fidei contra gentiles (1261-C,4); and the Summa theologioe. To the dogmatic works belong also certain commentaries, as follows: Expositio in librum beati Dionysii de divinis nominibits; Expositiones primoe et secundce; In Boethii libros de hebdomadibus; and Proeclare quoestiones super librum Boethii de trinitate. A large number of opuscitla also belonged to this group. Of philosophical writings there are cataloged thirteen commentaries on Aristotle, besides numerous philosophical opuscula of which fourteen are classed as genuine.

Back to Table of Contents



The Summa Part I: God



The greatest work of Thomas was the Summa and it is the fullest presentation of his views. He worked on it from the time of Clement IV. (after 1265) until the end of his life. When he died he had reached question ninety of part iii., on the subject of penance. What was lacking, was afterward added from the fourth book of his commentary on the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard as a supplementum, which is not found in manuscripts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The Summa consists of three parts. Part i. treats of God, who is the " first cause, himself uncaused " (primum movens immobile) and as such existent only in act (actu), that is pure actuality without potentiality and, therefore, without corporeality. His essence is actus purus et perfectus. This follows from the fivefold proof for the existence of God; namely, there must be a first mover, unmoved, a first cause in the chain of causes, an absolutely necessary being, an absolutely perfect being, and a rational designer. In this connection the thoughts of the unity, infinity, unchangeableness, and goodness of the highest being are deduced. The spiritual being of God is further defined as thinking and willing. His knowledge is absolutely perfect since he knows himself and all things as appointed by him. Since every knowing being strives after the thing known as end, will is implied in knowing. Inasmuch as God knows himself as the perfect good, he wills himself as end. But in that everything is willed by God, everything is brought by the divine will to himself in the relation of means to end. Therein God wills good to every being which exists, that is he loves it; and, therefore, love is the fundamental relation of God to the world. If the divine love be thought of simply as act of will, it exists for every creature in like measure: but if the good assured by love to the individual be thought of, it exists for different beings in various degrees. In so far as the loving God gives to every being what it needs in relation practical reason," affording the idea of the moral law of nature, so important in medieval ethics.

Back to Table of Contents



The Summa Part II: Ethics



The first part of the Summa is summed up in the thought that God governs the world as the universal first cause. God sways the intellect in that he gives the power to know aid impresses the species intelligibiles on the mind, and he ways the will in that he holds the good before it as aim, and creates the virtus volendi. To will is nothing else than a certain inclination toward the object of the volition which is the universal good. God works all in all, but so that things also themselves exert their proper efficiency. Here the Areopagitic ideas of the graduated effects of created things play their part in Thomas's thought. The second part of the Summa (two parts, prima secundae and secundae, secunda) follows this complex of ideas. Its theme is man's striving after the highest end, which is the blessedness of the visio beata. Here Thomas develops his system of ethics, which has its root in Aristotle. In a chain of acts of will man strives for the highest end. They are free acts in so far as man has in himself the knowledge of their end and therein the principle of action. In that the will wills the end, it wills also the appropriate means, chooses freely and completes the consensus. Whether the act be good or evil depends on the end. The "human reason" pronounces judgment concerning the character of the end, it is, therefore, the law for action. Human acts, however, are meritorious in so far as they promote the purpose of God and his honor. By repeating a good action man acquires a moral habit or a quality which enables him to do the good gladly and easily. This is true, however, only of the intellectual and moral virtues, which Thomas treats after the mariner of Aristotle; the theological virtues are imparted by God to man as a " disposition," from which the acts here proceed, but while they strengthen, they do not form it. The " disposition " of evil is the opposite alternative. An act becomes evil through deviation from the reason and the divine moral law. Therefore, sin involves two factors: its substance or matter is lust; in form, however, it is deviation from the divine law. Sin has its origin in the will, which decides, against the reason, for a changeable good." Since, however, the will also moves the other powers of man, sin has its seat in these too. By choosing such a lower good as end, the will is misled by self-love, so that this works as cause in every sin. God is not the cause of sin, since, on the contrary, he draws all things to himself. But from another side God is the cause of all things, so he is efficacious also in sin as *-ctio but not as ens. The devil is not directly the cause of sin, but he incites by working on the imagination and the sensuous impulse of man, as men or things may also do. Sin is original. Adam's first sin passes upon himself and all the succeed


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...