Without spiritual values, the atheist is sunk. The conundrum of the
mind manacled, defiance based, spiritually sick atheist is this. They
need spiritual values to be at peace - yet their own defiance blocks
them from seeking and finding these values.

The atheist that only has a foundation of ego and hate will never find
peace. If any theist questioning their faith should wonder onto
alt.atheism, for instance, they could see this for themselves with
many spiritually sick example members and their projection of this
spiritual sickness and self hate onto others.

What is missing in these atheists lives?

Do they need to get religion?

Not necessarily.

As we see, many people claiming to be religious are just as bad off as
atheists or sometimes worse.

"People that practice religion are worried about going to hell -
people that practice spirituality have already been to hell and don't
want to go back."

Spiritual values is what they are short on.

Such atheists full of defiance and devoid of spiritual values are
'dogmatic skeptics', whereas atheists that are open to spiritual
values are of the order of 'skeptical skeptics.' The spiritual based
atheists have not forgotten 'All Deities reside within the human
breast' as Blake wrote. There is a world of difference between the two
types of atheists...a night and day difference. The spiritual based
atheists 'deifies humanity and peace' the defiance based atheist
'deifies their ego' and loses any connection with humanity and becomes
a haggard, shell of a human.

A lot of atheists I run into make their intellect their God. They do
not know that academic smarts are not the same as peace smarts. Until
they can transcend their ego they will never find the answer (peace)
they seek. It is the same for those that think money is all that is
standing between them and happiness. So it goes for the ego and
intellect based person that is devoid of spiritual values. Always
remember...one thing only goes so far with giving a person a good
life. Seek balance. Spiritual growth as well as humans are not
perfect, but we can all do better at being humane if we try.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0

There are many flavors of atheists...natural atheists, personal
atheists, explicit atheists, implicit atheists weak atheists, strong
atheists, discovery atheists, reactionary atheists, indoctrinated
atheists and of course the bad ass atheists with attitude aka BAAWA
varieties. But the defining characteristic that leads an atheist to
peace is whether they are a 'spiritual based atheist' or 'defiance
based atheist.'' I have to laugh sometimes when I read the fantasies
of atheists that think atheism will take over the world. It would take
a different brand of atheist to persuade many to change if they
investigate the online atheists of the usenet to any degree.

In short you must become spiritual based atheists to offer something
to the religious crowd instead of the defiance based atheists that
many of you are.

What is a defiance based atheist?

Let me give you an example via some discussion with 'N'

If we look at N's youth he showed defiance from the start. He knew at
a young age God was repulsive without even studying and told his
parents what to do when it came to marching orders.

N: "Dragged to Sunday school 3 times, hated the songs, thought God
was repulsive, refused to go ever again."

V: Now at adulthood, 'N' carried this defiance with him and refuses
to let others think for themselves and demands all think as he does or
else.

N: "Theists like you (V) should be given electric shocks every time
they use parables. That is my new policy."

V: As Professor Peter Kreeft remarked on the subject of morality:
First level morality could be called survival morality - lets not hit
each other on the head so none of us will die. Second level morality
could be justice morality - lets not hit each other on the head
because it is not fair or not right. Third level morality could be
called 'transcend the ego' morality - lets not hit each other because
we love each other.

N: "Professor Peter Kreeft is a Christian. This is an atheist
group. Why would you think someone who bases their morality on the
Bible and the supernatural has anything relevant to say to an atheist?
Why are you promoting Christian values? Some agnostic you are. Some
freethinker you are."

end

I did not know Professor Kreeft was a Christian. I had listened to a
lecture series from the library on the Philosophy of Religion - Faith
and Reason he authored. He gave no indication of what religion he was.
I did not need to know his religious convictions to come to a
conclusion about what he said. I look at what was said and not at who
said what. 'N' demonstrates how the mind manacled, defiance based
atheists gets blinded by prejudice and ego at every turn.

Atheists say they operate on truth and not by faith. If we look at the
3 examples Kreeft gave, all 3 can be tested by practical application.
Even the 'transcend the ego' concept can be tested by any freethinking
atheist. All they have to do is practice kindness and being charitable
to humanity as opposed to practicing hatred and ill will. Then they
can test this out for themselves. Even if the atheist does not wish to
test level three morality, level one and two have nothing to do with
spiritual values. Yet the mind manacled, defiant atheists throws the
whole lot out because they get blinded to the discussion due to
prejudice and small minded thinking.

No, 'N', a good agnostic is open to the discussion from all sides. A
proper atheists and theist would be as well. For how could an atheists
claim to serve truth, when they shut their mind to the discussion and
block out anything that their ego demands them to. I guess in your
mind a good atheists is a yes man that runs by herd instinct and
nothing else. No judging truth on it own, truth is defined not by
testing, but by guilt by association in your mind 'N'.

Freethinker is a popular term thrown around atheists and agnostic
circles. I use it myself to describe myself.

http://www.freethoughtforum.org/about/freethought.aspx

I've only used 'N' as one example here and he not singled him out. If
I wanted to write a book on the subject I could have offered you an
almost endless supply of examples. For instance. I posted on the
subject of "Peace Tools for Atheists, Agnostics and Believers" to the
'alt.atheism' to open up some dialogue on what tools are available for
the atheist or agnostic to use to generate inner peace in place of
organized religion. All the tools and concepts I discussed were
available for any person to use without the belief in God.

In my post I covered many tools from simplicity, compassion, classical
philosophical studies, ethics, mindfulness, reciprocity, charity,
accepting impermanence, developing gratitude and contentment, cutting
back on craving and desires, working with natural law, balanced
living, etc. I illustrated how I use freethinking to take tools for
peace wherever I find them without prejudice and evaluate the tool on
it own and not under guilt by association. All the tools I discussed
were available to use without the belief in God.

I received the following responses to my post on inner peace tools:

"I've never been not at peace. What you offer makes me physically
ill. It's like a nasty man come round to tell little kiddees he has
candy for them if they touch his pee pee. You know, most of the
atheists I know are as good as children are at discerning
misrepresentation. You aren't trying to help anyone but your own
self. Go away, we have no interest in touching your pee pee."

"First of all, this is a newsgroup, not the freaking public library.
Keep it short and to the point. Second, you're full of shit."

"Stop posting your vile polemic deliberately nasty, lying Christian?
Please go away. No-one is buying your poisonous diatribe. Are you
really this stupid, or just pretending?"

"We know this deliberately nasty, slandering liar is a Christian by
his fruits. A liar as well as an idiot. Don't be so fucking stupid."

"What the fuck has philosophy got to do with your in-your-face
psychopathy?"

"You wouldn't know "virtuous behaviour" if it hit you over the head,
whining hypocrite who needs to get the log out of his own eye before
accusing us of a projection of his own deficiencies."

"So fucking what? Keep it to yourself and nobody will know what an
asshole you are."

"Why would any atheist need tools for peace?"

I did not receive one reply offering to discuss this topic, only
abusive replies condemning me and my offer for the discussion of
finding inner peace. All these replies came from non-freethinking,
mind manacled, defiant atheists. How do I know they are such? Because
of their replies. I do not expect for anyone to agree with any or all
of my tools. But if we disagree with a concept, we must have another
concept to replace what we have torn down in our minds as wrong. How
do we know what is wrong unless we know what is right? With this
group, all they could offer to replace my tools were 'ad hominem'
arguments to destroy me and not destroy the concepts. Such non-
freethinkers are characterized not by sound judgment, rationality and
wisdom, but by a prejudiced insobriety of opinion that roots itself of
egoistic pride. Through a life based in condemnation prior to
investigation, they do not see that as they go to extreme measures to
have no connection with spirituality, their actions also causes a lose
of connection with any humanity.

Sure tearing others down appeals to ones ego and pride, but so did
torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we need a
different way to find self worth. As you instill seeds of peace within
others you plant the same seeds and water these seeds within you as
well. As you give so you receive. Is that from the bible or karma?
No, it is just universal law. Do we like to be beaten down? Whenever
we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed in a
direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well as
others peace. It takes no energy from me to pass something by and
leave it alone in peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to
pick something up to destroy it.

(When I posted this paragraph earlier, an atheist piped to accuse me
of hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato when I pick it up to
eat it. Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says
I must spew venom from my mouth to destroy others. If you can get over
fishing for red herrings and get onto bigger fish to fry you will see
a world of difference in your peace practice.)

That is the beauty of being a freethinker. We can think for ourselves.
As such, when we get a toolbox we can decide which tools to use for
the job. Some tools are used a lot, other tools are left alone for the
time being, and still others are trashed when we see they are broken
and useless. Traditional freethinkers do not accept me as one of their
group, since I draw from spiritual paths as well as wordily areas to
garner wisdom to live at peace. Traditional freethinkers do not like
anything that comes from religion. Kind of a misnomer isn't it...I'm a
freethinker...but I must block out everything that comes from religion
and spiritual traditions and whatever other prejudice I wish to inject
into the equation? Psychologist William James once said, "A great many
people believe they are thinking when they are merely rearranging
their prejudices." When we limit prejudice we can open our minds to
truth and peace. And realize the truth of Blake's words that "all
deities reside within the human breast." Yes, if it is religion that
an atheists need to adopt, they only have to look as far as the
religion of humanity. But just paying secular humanism lip service
will not do any good. Our talk of spiritual values must match our
actions.

Spiritual values and atheists do not generally mix. One atheists gave
his views on this subject of discussing spiritual tools to live by:

AK writes:

"What is spirit or spirituality? Without knowing what you mean by the
word, one can't know what you mean. Why study something for which you
not only have no evidence, but not even a definition?"

Yes, spiritual concepts are hard to define, just as the source of the
wind is hard to define. Since spiritual matters deal with the unseen
and the unknown, how can we define them perfectly? If we could do that
they would not be spiritual studies. You can't see why one person is
loving and kind and another person is a fiend of perennial shame, hate
and destruction. Nor can you see what made the hate monger change into
a kind and loving human. We can describe spiritual concepts and the
journey that made the change possible, but it is impossible to put our
finger on it all exactly. Spiritual growth is a journey that is a
never ending, an imperfect process in this life. But just as we can
see the effects of the wind, while being blind to its source; we can
most definitely see the difference in people that incorporate
spiritual values within their lives when compared to people that live
a life devoid of any spiritual values.

Their are many fields of spiritual studies. We can separate the
studies into two main fields; the corporeal and the meta-corporeal.
Some of these studies deal with energy fields, meditative states of
consciousness, out of body and near death accounts, psychic research,
etc. Most of my work is in the corporal realm. I leave the advanced
studies to those better qualified for it than myself. Britain and the
US both have centers for psychic research. Plenty of information is
out there if you are interested in studying it.

"No man is so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other
counsel than his own. He that is taught only by himself has a fool for
a master." Ben Jonson

No one said we have to 'investigate it all,' but we do have to give it
some thought if we wish to be at peace. A Hindu sage once told me
"Just as water floes downhill without effort but requires outside
forces and energy to make it move uphill. So the human consciousness
falls to its lowest levels of the senses without effort and energies
to make our consciousness gravitate to more than our base desires." As
such without effort the defiance based atheists sinks deeper and
deeper into sickness and tragedy as time goes by.

The business of humanism is 'all our business' if we with to live life
at peace. This relationship of interdependent humanistic balance can
best be visualized in the 3 corners of a triangle which represents the
spiritual realm, other persons and ourselves At the top goes Higher
Power / God of Peace and God of Nature / Yahweh / Buddha / The
Dharma / Nature / Karma / Universe or whatever you choose as the
unseen force behind all. On the bottom right corner of the triangle
goes other people. On the left bottom corner of the triangle goes
yourself. Keeping this relationship in harmonious balance helps
develop compassion for others and humility within ourselves.

We learn to think about others and the spirit as well as our own needs
and we can then see we are all interdependent and not independent with
all. Once you see this balance you will realize that we all share the
same breath and no need to practice hatred or develop ill will towards
others. It is much better to develop compassion for others. For as we
develop compassion for others we develop peace within, just as it is a
law that when we develop hatred for others we develop hatred within.

No, egocentricity is not good for spiritual work and we need to be
open to others ideas and embrace them as nourishment for your growth
and sustenance for life - as no one person is god. As a freethinking
agnostic I AM FREE to look for truth wherever the road takes me. I
discriminate against no one. As such, I study with the Christians, the
Buddhists, the Jews, the Muslims, the Taoists and even find truth as I
study with the atheists.

I was at a religious discussion where the group was composed of a wide
spectrum of believers and non believers. One atheist said he ran his
life by the golden rule. A theist then injected that the golden rule
came from the bible, which made the atheist wince. The atheist seemed
to take pride in his self sufficiency and did not like to run his life
by anything that came out of the bible. When it was suggested that the
concept of golden rule might be from an earlier source than the bible,
then the atheist was relieved.

This was a good reminder to me to examine where my guiding light
resides?

Is it ego based or truth based?

When the guiding light of this atheist was not grounded in the bible
he was happy. But when it came from an area that he did not approve
of, he was upset. How can the same material be used to build a palace
by one man, yet only build a hovel for another? By one spiritual
practitioner seeing truth and applying it to live a life at peace, and
the other person only seeing prejudice, problems and doing nothing.

Every religion was made by man and as such every religion is imperfect
as it is run by man. Despite these imperfections, each religion also
has many "perfection's" within it as well. We can still be open to
peace generating tools from any of the religions and spiritual
traditions that are available to us if we are serious about being at
peace. This requires us to run our life by truth and not by prejudice.
In the Sermon on the Mount, it was reported that Jesus said:
“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to
them” (Matthew 7:12). Nowadays this verse is commonly referred to as
“The Golden Rule,” and is more commonly quoted as: “Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you.”

Is the story of Jesus a myth? I don't know, but there seems to be real
and substantive reasons for the myth theory to be true. In any case, I
can put principles before personalties and look at what was said
instead of who said what to get at the bottom line truth. Even if
Jesus was myth, it has no bearing on the practical application of the
golden rule of reciprocity anymore than the practical application of
Taoists beliefs that come from the myth of Lao Tzŭ.

Here are some of the earliest sources for this concept of reciprocity

~1970-1640 BCE "Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause
him thus to do." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient
Egypt, tr. R.B. Parkinson.

* ~700 BCE "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another
whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5,
Zoroastrianism.

* ? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others."
- Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.

* ~550 BCE "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your
countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Tanakh,
new JPS translation, Leviticus 19:18, Judaism.

* ~500 BCE "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find
hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.

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

Now, whether you believe in God or believe in Jesus or are an atheist
or Buddhist does this wisdom not apply to you? This truth is universal
in nature as it is based not on being of a certain religion, other
than that of the religion of humanity. In this case, you can adopt a
peace generating tool and apply it to your life irrespective of your
religious beliefs or lack thereof. I had to chuckle one time when an
atheists argued that the golden rule is not perfect, so he said he
does not follow it. When I questioned him about what he does follow as
well as the state of perfection that applied to his life, all he could
do was reply with ad hominem attacks.

If we are waiting for perfection when it comes to spiritual studies we
will always be disappointed. Before applying perfection to anything
outside of us, we should examine the perfection within us. The nature
of humans is that of imperfection, so we must always look towards
direction and forget perfection. I heard a story one time in a Yoga
lecture that illustrates this point. "Range is of the ego - Form is of
the soul." The only thing we need to be concerned with is how is our
form when it comes to our spiritual practice and our life.

Regarding the golden rule? It is more perfect than imperfect, so it is
a most useful tool to live a life at peace by. And when we combine it
with other tools such as universality, natural law, contrasting the
greater good with the greater right, flourishing of the species
theory, etc., the synergistic effect is close to perfection as humans
can get with this subject. But it takes some thinking and one will not
see it without an open mind. i believe this is why religion was
created in the first place. Most people cannot give this subject of
morals the time needed, so religion is a condensed and easy to
assimilate form of prepackaged morals. You only hope the packing was
done right from the start as we can see that many religious devotees
of the past have use it as a scapegoat to do harm to others.

I see this predisposition to destruction many times in responses I
receive from my posts. The critiques offer much in the line of 'no
goods' but they seldom do they offer any substantive tools to finding
peace. Sure, I do not have it '100%% right' but I have it 'right
enough' to be able to be at peace if I apply these principles. If I
waited for perfection, I would never act. I use the tools at hand.

Aristotle ~ "It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with
the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not
to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible."

This being able to 'rest satisfied' is something the perfectionists
lack and why they will never be at peace until they stop collecting
concepts and start using the concepts of peace generations. The
atheist I mentioned above demonstrated this with his blanket dismissal
of the golden rule since it is not 100%% perfect. He could offer no
substitutes for the golden rule, all he could do was succumb to
personal attacks on me.

We can examine our actions to see what useful tools for finding peace
we offer to others. This evaluation says a lot about our own practice
of generating inner peace. When you practice peace promotion with
others you will reap inner peace promotion. When you practice
destroying others peace, you will reap self destruction of inner
peace. I suggest any atheists wishing to find inner peace within
their life adopt the creed of the atheists (their version of
prepackaged morals) and become secular humanists as a good first
start.

The 'informal creed' of atheism.

An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes
that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth
for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he
must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life,
to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a
knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will
help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow
man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital
should be built instead of a church.

An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer
said.

An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He
wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a
god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a
hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our
own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the
time is now.”

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/

"The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles"

• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the
understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to
explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature
for salvation.

• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute
to the betterment of human life.

• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is
the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian
elites and repressive majorities.

• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and
state.

• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of
resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and
with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so
that they will be able to help themselves.

• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race,
religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or
ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of
humanity.

• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future
generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other
species.

• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our
creative talents to their fullest.
• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to
fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to
exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and
informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity,
honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to
critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we
discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We
want to nourish reason and compassion.

• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still
to be made in the cosmos.

• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to
novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of
despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal
significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than
despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance,
joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love
instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of
ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that
we are capable of as human beings.

Council for Secular Humanism

Take care,

V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher