What is missing in these atheists lives?

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.

One time an atheist responded to this post saying: "Not having any

beliefs in gods means one must be mind manacled and deluded? I don't

think anyone here is naive enough to fall for your crap, but the more

interesting question is, do 'you' actually believe it?"

Well, it is not the belief or lack of belief in any gods that defines

the mind manacled, defiance based spiritually sick atheist. The

foundation of such non-freethinkers are characterized not by sound

judgment, rationality and wisdom, but by a prejudiced insobriety of

opinion that roots itself in egoistic pride.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=627.0

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=529.0

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.

One thing only goes so far with giving a person a good life. If inner

peace was to be found in a test tube - you would have mixed up a batch

by now.

The vast majority of atheists I have come across seem to be like

animals caught in trap, squirming and writhing in every direction,

looking, grasping outside of themselves for freedom from this trap to

find a modicum of inner peace.

But the trap is an 'inner one' and all their efforts grasping outside

of themselves are futile.

Always remember, passions are rooted in the self and the self is

always is in flux which accounts for the rise and fall of these

passions.

Whereas, truth is stable - for the truth is that which does not

change.

Seek balance. Spiritual growth as well as humans are not perfect, but

we can all do better at being humane if we try. And as you develop

humane qualities these will support your program for inner peace.

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 and truth based atheist' or 'defiance

ego 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 to any degree.

In short, if you wish to drop the atheist delusion you have been

carrying around for so long, you must become spiritual and truth based

atheists to offer something to the religious crowd - instead of the

defiance based, hate fueled atheists that many of you are.

And this advice goes for theists as well...throughout history, when

were tyrants ever satisfied with just one death?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/f4006812a06f9ddf

What is a defiance based atheist?

Let me give you an example via some discussion with Neil Kelsey

If we look at Neil Kelsey's youth he showed defiance from the start.

He knew at a young age God was repulsive without even studying

religious thought and told his parents what to do when it came to

marching orders.

Neil Kelsey: "Dragged to Sunday school 3 times, hated the songs,

thought God was repulsive, refused to go ever again."

V: Now at adulthood, Neil Kelsey carried this defiance with him and

refuses to let others think for themselves and demands all think as he

does or else. This is how ego based tyrants have ruled throughout

history...with fear and pain.

Neil Kelsey: "Theists like you (V) should be given electric shocks

every time they use parables. That is my new policy."

V: When the discussion turned to moral values and virtue I

wrote...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.

Neil Kelsey: "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."

V: 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 Neil.

Neil Kelsey demonstrates how the mind manacled, defiance based

atheists gets blinded by prejudice and ego at every turn. Atheist are

mind manacled to what is said and are blocked from truth by their own

ego based prejudices.

Atheists say they operate on truth and not by faith. But, that could

not be further from the truth.

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.

But their mind manacled by chains forged in the fire of hatred and

prejudice refuses to entertain any freethought that does not have a

foundation in hatred and ill will towards mankind. You see, it is not

knowledge and peace that their atheism is based on...it is hatred.

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, Neil, 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

Neil.

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 Neil Kelsey as one example here and he not singled him

out despite his claims that I am vindictive. Neil Kelsey was given the

opportunity to write a rebuttal and have that rebuttal linked to this

post but he refused. Just as I offered the same rebuttal time to other

atheists I mention in my posts.

See:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/2d4480f0471e8c18/d22376eaa1088a3a?hl=en#d22376eaa1088a3a

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.

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:

Christopher A. Lee wrote: "So fucking what? Keep it to yourself and

nobody will know what an asshole you are."

Kate wrote: "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."

Christopher A. Lee wrote: "What the fuck has philosophy got to do

with your in-your-face psychopathy?"

Michael Gray wrote: "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?"

John Baker wrote: "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."

Christopher A. Lee wrote: "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."

Christopher A. Lee wrote: "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."

Christopher A. Lee wrote: "a few hundred lines of irrelevant bullshit

by a whining hypocrite who

doesn't practice what he preaches, deleted"

Robibnikoff wrote: "Shaddup, you dick."

Michael Gray wrote: "There ain't nothin' lamer than a jabriol

fuckwit"

Christopher A. Lee wrote: "Whi give a shit, in-your-face stuipid

moron?"

John Baker wrote: 'I'd almost feel sorry for him if he wasn't such

a disgusting piece of shit."

Robibnikoff wrote: "I hope that stupid fucker (V) doesn't think I

actually read all that dog shit he posts."

Robibnikoff wrote: "....no one gives a shit what you think."

Stoney wrote: "Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a

wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I

trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters."

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

based 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.

Robibnikoff explained the plight of the mind amcled, defiance absed,

spittly sick athestr it best when she wrote: "I hope that stupid

fucker (V) doesn't think I actually read all that dog shit he posts."

She knows what I say is all wrong, without even reading it.

Reminds me of another mind manacled atheist Enkidu.

Enkidu writes: "You (V) have nothing to say that we haven't heard

before, nothing to say that hasn't been say better by others, and

nothing to say that was worth hearing when said better by others. Your

pathetic little turds of truth are unoriginal , irrational, ill-

conceived, ill-received, and devoid of value. But no, with all the

understanding of diarrhoeic bull's ass, you continue to spray shit

with abandon. " (condensed)

Edkidu's condition of self deification is discussed here:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0

I would tell all the mind manacled, defiance based spiritually sick

atheists - sure, tearing others down appeals to one's 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, a mind manacled 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.

The destruction of inner peace by destroying potatoes comes about when

I destroy my neighbors crop field of potatoes by poisoning them to

bankrupt him in order to take over his farmland...it does not come

about by eating a potato.

The God of Nature gives me potatoes to eat, the God of inner Peace

tells me to not eat potatoes in excess or to destroy others if I wish

to be at peace. I cannot see either God, I know not how they work, I

just know they are.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0

That is the beauty of being a freethinker. We can think for ourselves.

All of us are not so fortunate in this respect and run on herd

instinct.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=646.0

But, when the true freethinker is shopping around for tools to build

their palace of inner peace, they can decide what goes into that tool

box and do not have useless tools thrust upon them.

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 (atheists) 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:

Al Klein 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 since that deals with inner

peace. 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.

See:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e77181f1188b4804/8d580376205a536b?

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.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=628.0

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.

Wisdom and truth transcend personalties.

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 practice based secular humanists as a good first start.

(Note the stress on practice and not on lip service...for without

application knowledge is useless.)

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

AA#2

> "...defiance based spiritually sick atheist."

exactly

"V" <vfr44@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1a62219c-3137-43b8-9ff2-cee572708555@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

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.

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 practice based secular humanists as a good first start.

(Note the stress on practice and not on lip service...for without

application knowledge is useless.)

snip

I'm an atheist and I'm totally at peace with myself. I do not need to

believe In a god to justify my existence. Nor do I need to believe In a

heaven or hell to be a good person and do no wrong against my fellow man.