He is in you but you choose to rebel , and there is a price that we pay god or no god
Any atheists here who were once believers?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
He is in you but you choose to rebel , and there is a price that we pay god or no god
Maybe he was off trying to hide gluons from probing physicists, or trying to induce ripples in the cosmic microwave background to throw us off a little more, or maybe busy keeping up with who was getting circumcised, who was eating pork -- which I think fits into his ToDo list right before black hole maintenance and, oh yeah, keeping that ever lovin' expansion of the universe going, which requires throwing some cosmic coal into the boiler somewhere.
But then he's a busy Dad. Work is piling up at the office and, well, that leaves us his latch-key kids just as likely to burn down the house as not.
Not to minimize the victims, for whom there are no words to adequately convey the scale of all of this cruelty you mention. But it might explain why God is AWOL every time the shit hits the fan.
Yes, Aqueous...perhaps.
And this same indifferent yet (merciful?) God...who has permitted all these sufferings despite fervent prayers of the faithful ...I should be grateful to spend eternity with ....I almost forgot that happy ending.
I respect others' choice to accept this but I just can't anymore.
And this same indifferent yet (merciful?) God...who has permitted all these sufferings despite fervent prayers of the faithful ...I should be grateful to spend eternity with ....I almost forgot that happy ending.
I respect others' choice to accept this but I just can't anymore.
Nope, you haven't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
and for contrast, esp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil_in_Hinduism
Although I'm having the feeling that we're not going to get anywhere as long as we are doing your homework!
Have you read my earlier post: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ce-believers&p=3115856&viewfull=1#post3115856
Not the deciding factor, but one can not dismiss their claims by merely saying it is impossible to have done so - as Jan has tried to suggest. Just as one can not dismiss the claims of people claiming to be a car mechanic. Test them, by all means, it is only prudent, but then you are testing them against your own criteria, not theirs.
Yet it is still belief in God.
I am not aware that belief in God necessarily has a social or objective component other than that belief. To suggest otherwise is surely to judge the matter on your own views of God, not the other person's.
Perhaps you can tell us what you think the objective component of belief in God is? Or the social component?
I would rather think that how one acts on a belief is entirely subjective, even if it is belief in God.
You describe yourself as an agnostic atheist, and so do I.
Compared to, for example, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus, you'd notice there's more, sometimes a lot of externally observable difference between the religious and those that aren't.
I'm talking about a special power the result of using which is that the person having this power is able to believe in God. That's not something that can be externally observed.
You're introducing matters I'm not talking about.
Not at all.
I'm talking about acknowledging that it is possible that God reveals Himself to people; and about acknowledging the possibility that some people have a kind of special power that gets them connected to God.
That's not the same as believing John Doe when he says he is a prophet and talks to God.
Again, one thing is taking John Doe at his word. Something quite different is acknowledging that some people may have personal revelation from God.
You're conflating the two.
I can't really relate, having never been in a situation like you have.
From my perspective as the outsider, things looked a lot different.
I find that if a question vexes me, it's good to look into my intentions behind asking it.
Just because a question pops up in one's mind, doesn't mean it's worth going after it. There's a lot to say on this from the traditional Buddhist perspective.
This is where we significantly differ. Like I said above, I look into my intentions for pursuing a question. And sometimes, it's quite obvious that the intention isn't wholesome. That kind of introspection alone already changes the way I think about things, and as a result, some questions that previously seemed so pertinent, lose their power, or become rephrased.
(In the thread on the 10 great phil. questions, I posted a link to a section of the Abhidhamma. Look that up, the way they address a point of controversy to get a feel for that kind of analysis.)
I am certainly not dismissing personal testimony. But I am not giving it absolute authority.
As long as I am the one doing the talking, then, yes, I am testing others against my own criteria. Everyone goes by this principle, how could it be otherwise.
The problem with giving personal testimony exclusive authority is that we end up in trivialism, where anything is regarded as true, anything is regarded as "religious."
In that case, we might as well dispense with all qualifiers altogether.
Sure. Just like a student car mechanic is still a car mechanic.
The social component is that one has learned things on the topic of God from other people, converses about said topic with other people, does things together with other people about said topic.
The objective component is that it is assumed that when we talk about God, we're not talking about a figment of our own imagination that has no existence outside of our minds, but instead of a being that exists independently of us.
If those actions can be recognized as such by others - ie. if they are embedded into a social discourse - then they are not entirely subjective.
I would never have turned out to be a religious person due to the death of a sibling at a very young age, which, by all accounts of the benevolence of the personal God, was irreconcilable even though I was too young to put the picture together very well. So I was resonating on your remarks. I do recall after learning all of the things God invests his time in according to Christians and Jews (later Islam) that nothing but a monster would be so cold and callous as to allow atrocities, horror and grief to descend on innocent victims and their families.
Regardless of this kind of 'predisposition' to be an atheist, I actually arrived at my present worldview as a teen--either 15 or 16. I guess like anyone else it one day occurred to me that if I were born in India everyone around me would be professing Hinduism, or in China it would be Buddhism and in the Arab lands, Islam (obviously there are many minority groups in those places). Thus, I concluded, all religion is luck of the draw. Wherever you end up being born, that's what marks you for membership in the local belief system. But that was also the age when I began to express the absurdity of belief in God and was pretty disturbed by the way some people would shrink in horror, like I'd pissed on their sacred burial grounds or something.
The other part of this is that notion you mention, eternity. It seemed primitive to me even as a kid; the idea of a soul inhabiting a body struck me as something like voodoo. Same with all the fascination over death, getting ready for death. That just couldn't be right. Add to this compassion that was supposed to be at the center of it, and there would be the reminder of God striking down a tiny child leaving the parent forever scarred, and it just never connected in me. I only saw one really scary exhibition of religious crackpottery at an evangelical event I attended with a girl I was dating, and only because I wanted to find out whether she was a closet nut herself (she was) but I hated the event. It made me feel like someone was putting a pillow over every ones' mouths and suffocating them to death. It was very visceral, I remember feeling sick, and I never again set foot in one of those events again. I did go into some churches and synagogues in connection with a music program I pursued in college and of course some marriage ceremonies I was in, and found them quite bizarre and stuffy as well. But none of this would ever correlate with the horrors their God was allowing to unfold. This huge disconnect left me pretty convinced that religion affects people like a mental imbalance, the same as some homeless person wandering around speaking incoherently to ghosts. Most of my life religious people just stayed in the background, as a constant reminder of a dysfunctional society. They really started going off the chain in the reign of Dubbya, and I see them now as threat to all peace and progress in civilized society, the instigators of the culture wars.
But all along I could have told them they were chasing windmills. People created their gods, not the other way around, and it happened as a consequence of trying to explain phenomena for which there was no science. We're way past that now. We know so much more; it's completely obsolete, and hardly a reason for running amok, tearing down science as they would idols.
That takes me to where I am. Here, talking to one of the sane members of one of the saner cults of religion. In a word, I couldn't agree more. No divine force of infinite good will would ever perpetuate all of the horror on the young, the old, and the innocent. It's criminal. (Therefore, God does not exist.)
And whose word are you taking that your criteria of God is correct?
I think you're getting hung up on the issue of giving anything "exclusive authority" on anything other than subjective matters. I've never suggested that anything should be given such.
No, the analogy would be that a car is still a car... the mechanic is just learned in the way of the car, the student less so. But the car is still a car. Belief in God is still belief in God.
Sharing subjective views does not necessarily make it not subjective.
Independently? Is not that already dressing God in clothes.
Not everyone shares your view of God - of existence independent of us. Not very objective then, is it.
But perhaps you'll just dismiss them as not really believing in God?
And even if we assume that this is a given, your "objective component" is then merely a restatement/clarification of the belief. And as I said: "I am not aware that belief in God necessarily has a social or objective component other than that belief."
That is true only of those actions that are identified. Not everyone acts in the same way on a belief, and some choose NOT to act.
If the belief is accompanied by a religion then sure, it is easier due to the actions one performs in accordance with the religion.
Even you have to condition your statement with "IF". Yes, if actions are embedded. The question is are all actions embedded?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You're not a teacher posting reading assignments. You are just another human being equal to the others here who are posting from their own experience. Why don't you speak from YOUR experience? That is, if you had an experience. I'm beginning to suspect you haven't.
Sure, some religions require far more practical involvement. But not all religions - and then there of course non-religious theists. The point, however, is that outside of any religious practices, I saw very little, if any, differences.
If it can not be externally observed, how are you to know in any way that the person is telling the truth?
One can acknowledge it, but then the issue is the same in whether or not we believe them. And acknowledging it possible does not mean that any cases of it are genuine, especially if the possibility is conditional upon a requisite that is not a given: i.e. the existence of God (i.e. people can not have such a power if God does not exist). And given the contradictory nature of those that make claims, sorting the wheat from the chaff means that we should be skeptical, especially as that requisite (God's existence) is not a given.
Why do you see them as different?
Because you were watching my actions and reading my thoughts during that period of my life??
You say this as though I have said that I do not?? I'd like to know where I have said it, because we are no different in this regard.
Don't jump to conclusions that that is what I did or do.
Again, we're not different in this. Just because I have found a conclusion to an answer does not mean that I did not look at my intentions for pursuing the answer. Introspection of motive behind asking does not always mean that we give up pursuit, and it also helps put the eventual answer into perhaps a better perpective. In many cases that introspection might fuel the pursuit.
The conclusion does not necessarily imply the path taken.
Spoken like someone who doesn't know what spacetime is.
Define your terms, sledgehammer. Otherwise, this is a useless exercise.
wegs said:
And I'm not convinced your naivete allows you to see with anything other than rose-colored glasses, wegs.
If you don't see Jan as evasive when it suits him and at the very least passive-aggressive when it suits him, then I don't know what to tell you.
What with your claret coloured spectacles, you see evil everywhere. Wipe your bleeding nose!
I don't see it that way. If in good health and enjoying life, as one then should, you should fear death even more with no belief in any after life - you only get this life. I'm old and have one well controlled medical problem, no pains and am in better shape than many 20 years younger. I fear death, for what I would lose.
BTW I normally did not sail out of sight of land, and certainly not after dark, but there was a gentle, moist, southerly breeze so, just before sun set, I did put the land below my western horizon. I was hoping I could see the setting sun's final green flash (still never have). Thought occurred to me now that if there is a God, he could even grant un prayed for wishes. St. Elmo's fire may have been a "Consolation Gift." Most have never seen it, but I have. Perhaps He was thinking: I'll teach that doubting Ph.D. to pray!
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I don't find this to be a sincere position on your part. Creationism is being taught in some schools, science is being curtailed by religion and I'm not supposed to have an opinion just because I don't believe in the supernatural? The final comment further proves the insincerity. If I don't agree with you and I express myself (the whole point of this forum and thread) then I must secretly be doubting my position! I think you can do better than that.
This is also a curious argument. You are implying that the religious mindset is more open than someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural but who is open to evidence where ever it may lead. This isn't the case of course.
This is the heart of the matter and the problem between religion and science..."once you know something, there is no more need to learn how to obtain knowledge of it".
Once we learned the world was flat there was no more need to learn how to obtain knowledge of it. This is why evolution is such a problem for many.
This is about as anti-knowledge as one could get. I'll let those comments speak for themselves.
Therefore God does not exist.
It doesn't take much for you believe that does it?
You mean that is how it must be for you.
Your idea of God stems from the evangelical christian tradition, it is little wonder you have little or no understanding of the nature, and character of God. I'd like to give more explanation of the attributes of God, as defined in the scriptures. If nothing else, it is remarkably interesting to know. But I don't feel like it (my bad)
In your other post you said you would accept God if He came down from the clouds, to you, in human form. Now here you are asking me if this woman comes to you in a vision would she be God.
Now the thing is, in your criteria for acceptence, how would you know that the person from the clouds was God, yet you would accept.
In answer to your question: You tell me.
jan.
The rest is just silly and more of the same. I didn't say I would "accept" anything but I'd be well on my way. You ask how would I know that the man in the clouds was God? I'm willing to call any man in the cloud God. Or at least consider it. If your God is the man in another cloud then we just have different religions (and Gods).
Interesting: most atheists I know have no fear of death. Perhaps yours fuels your belief in an after life?
I have no fear of it. The process of dying, yes, but death itself, no.
It is also the acceptance of this being the only life that helps fuels one's happiness, in my experience.
But heck, you use whatever you want to assuage your fear.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
you should expect two lumps of coal now, in your Xmas stocking.
This is a very VERY interesting point, Jan.
This thread has offered me insight into how others view religion, spirituality, and an overall belief in a god, or God. I have grown to understand wynn’s points much better, and find myself in agreement with much of them. I believe that while I can’t say if there is a god or not (I don’t have a complete atheist view, more atheist/agnostic)…it isn’t for me to judge if others do feel there is a god. Why should it bother me, if someone believes in God? As long as religion doesn’t intrude upon others, why should I honestly care what someone else chooses?
I’m not much of an arguer, in my offline life…and so, to argue with people over why they believe as they wish, just isn’t me. I think we can make excuses sometimes to feeling offended, over perceived slights. I don’t like seeing cold, crass comments shot at non believers, or believers. It’s what always bothered me when I was a Christian…this need to always be proving myself. Proving why I believe. And in that process, making others look like they are living in opposition to ‘the right way.’
Likewise, now that I’m no longer Christian, I can see where the road could lead, if I allow myself to go down it, ‘defending’ atheism/agnosticism. On either side of the tracks, how one lives his/her life is honestly all that matters. If someone touts that he/she loves God, but tramples on his/her neighbor (mocks, insults, takes pot shots at, etc)…then, to me…don’t bother touting anything. Likewise, if an atheist touts that religious folks are a negative influence on society, yet also presents him/herself in the same light…then, what has such a person accomplished?
I just don’t have a ''dog in this fight'', anymore. What other people choose is none of my business, unless he/she wishes to share here. I’m grateful for my life, and while it’s far from perfect, I’m happy in it. Stay open minded, everyone. You never know who you can learn from in this life…and on this forum.
I'll use quotes of what you've said to make a general statement of my views on this subject as well.
I find that both the theists and the atheists can come across as not very compassionate and civil towards the other side. Sometimes this is just certain individuals who are always that way and sometimes it's particular posts where any of us can come across that way (even unintentionally).
In person I would rarely have these conversations unless someone asked and in that case I would be less direct in certain of my arguments as it isn't helpful to make the other side look like they are involved with silly beliefs. If someone is questioning religion it's better to be supportive and just give a different perspective on whatever is specifically bothering them.
If someone isn't religious and asks me questions on this subject then I would be direct and wouldn't hide how silly I think religion is.
On a forum like this however I think it's OK to be more direct since everyone here is presumably here because they want to be. No one has to be here. No one has to respond so I think we can be more direct. I still think we should be polite and respect everyone.
I think there are a few posters that we would be better off just ignoring most of the time just so that every post isn't about them or about some fringe topic but that (ignoring) should be strictly voluntary.
My main point is that we should be more understanding of everyone (whether the topic is religion or not). It's just a good idea but it also promotes more intelligent discussions. When people become defensive their arguments become less intelligent and then we end up arguing ridiculous points.
Most atheists don't care what another individual believes in or how they think. They do care when it affects others. With something like believing in the supernatural it is easy to have that mindset affect others. This is why we care.
In our day to day lives it generally doesn't matter. As someone pointed out, we all know families who are religious and those who aren't and they generally act the same way and do the same things, volunteer to the same degree, have the same morals, etc.
In that sense, most of us (believers and non-believers) aren't concerned with what the other's are thinking about.
I've also decided that labels aren't really helpful. I'm just someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural. We don't need a divisive word to describe that any more than we need a word to describe not believing in Santa.
I stopped "believing" in God at the same age that I stopped believing in Santa.
To me there are those with religious beliefs and then everyone else. It's actually quite arrogant for someone to have a belief and then expect anyone not agreeing with you to be labeled in their unbelief.
Seems true, but Satan sure could.