Beliefs?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

There's a logical argument there that suggests that a sizable number of people will *say* they are true believers, but that their actions make it plain that they don't behave in a way that is at all rational if they *truly* hold the beliefs they claim to hold. Tough to say what this means -- maybe it's people just being more comfortable saying they believe than not, after all atheists rank somewhere right around child molesters and war criminals in general public opinion.

My favourite arguement against the Catholic church is the Pope riding around in his bullet proof pope mobile ...

He believes in God a lot obviously, but he believe in the power of bullets even more

[molson]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

If you truly believe that this life is all there is, then why would spend even a second on something so pointless as a text sim, or at a sporting event, or on a message board. Shouldn't a life well lived consist of more than sitting in front of a keyboard arguing on the internet? We only get to do this one time, and you're going to waste your time pretending you're the GM of the San Diego Chargers? Well, not you specifically, but you know what I mean.

It depends on the person I guess.

I don't have any huge aspirations for my time on the planet. I want to have fun, make some friends, and try not to cause too much trouble for anyone.

Life's too exhausting as is it to "make the most" out of everything. What does that even mean? Going to art museums? I'd rather play a text sim. Traveling? I do that as much as I can afford.

My life makes sense to me at the moment, I enjoy it, I know what I want to accomplish, and then after that I'll be dead (and by then, I think I'll be more than ready for it - I have some days now where I'm ready for it). And if I die tragically before then, that's life. I'm sure my friends will remember me even more fondly then if I kicked off in 50 years, so in that sense, I'll still be around for a while, and will have an impact on people's lives.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Here is basically what I think in a nutshell... There is no scientific argument for a God, so there probably isn't one. I tend to be more agnostic than atheist simply because nobody can really know.

However, if one does exist, why should I even give a damn? A "God" that allows people to suffer so awfully, including children born with terminal disease and sickness, is not deserving of any respect or worship. So, even if this "God" does exist, and "Heaven" and "Hell" do exist, I would rather be tormented in this "Hell" forever than pretend that this "God" is wonderful while letting horrible things happen to people who have done no harm to anyone or anything.

We're all born with sin so none of us is an innocent creature who've done no harm to anyone or anything. We're destined to live here, and then eventually move on to hell. Only through God's grace, and the belief in Jesus are we forgiven for being innate sinners.

As I said earlier in the thread, this existence is a blip on the radar compared to eternity.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I'll definitely agree. Personal preference is no reason to believe. But I think I'd also say that personal preference is also no reason not to believe as well.

At the end of the day, "God" is either letting bad things happen, forcing bad things to happen, or powerless to interact in a good or bad way at all. Given that, why should I care whether "God" exists, much less bothering to "worship" this "God" entity? Assuming "God" does exist, they don't carry much influence with me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

We're all born with sin so none of us is an innocent creature who've done no harm to anyone or anything. We're destined to live here, and then eventually move on to hell. Only through God's grace, and the belief in Jesus are we forgiven for being innate sinners.

As I said earlier in the thread, this existence is a blip on the radar compared to eternity.

But why then, did God create us just so that "we're destined to live here, and then eventually move on to hell". He created billlions just so he could have a relationship with a few, knowing that the rest would burn? That's not very nice.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

We're all born with sin so none of us is an innocent creature who've done no harm to anyone or anything. We're destined to live here, and then eventually move on to hell. Only through God's grace, and the belief in Jesus are we forgiven for being innate sinners.

As I said earlier in the thread, this existence is a blip on the radar compared to eternity.

Fine. A "God" that is going to hold me responsible for things I never did, and does this to other people as well, is worthless in my opinion. I don't have time for anybody like that, supernatural or otherwise.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

But why then, did God create us just so that "we're destined to live here, and then eventually move on to hell". He created billlions just so he could have a relationship with a few, knowing that the rest would burn? That's not very nice.

And assuming the story is true, why should this influence me to even tolerate this "God" at all? Telling me "God" is so horrible that they would intentionally put living creatures through this is hardly going to win me over.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by molson

But why then, did God create us just so that "we're destined to live here, and then eventually move on to hell". He created billlions just so he could have a relationship with a few, knowing that the rest would burn? That's not very nice.

He gives us a choice. Believe or don't. How bout this - he sends his son down to earth to die for our sins, and all we as humans have to do is believe this happened. However, a great multitude of us don't. That's not very "nice" either, is it?

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Fine. A "God" that is going to hold me responsible for things I never did, and does this to other people as well, is worthless in my opinion. I don't have time for anybody like that, supernatural or otherwise.

Ok. Choice made.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

At the end of the day, "God" is either letting bad things happen, forcing bad things to happen, or powerless to interact in a good or bad way at all. Given that, why should I care whether "God" exists, much less bothering to "worship" this "God" entity? Assuming "God" does exist, they don't carry much influence with me.

You know, if you replaced "God" with "the government", you'd be an anarchist.

Thomas Paine once said "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value."

If life wasn't a rollercoaster of ups and downs and instead was a smooth ride from start to finish, do you think we'd appreciate how good our life was? Heck, we overlook how easy we have it now compared to generations past.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

He gives us a choice. Believe or don't. How bout this - he sends his son down to earth to die for our sins, and all we as humans have to do is believe this happened. However, a great multitude of us don't. That's not very "nice" either, is it?

This "God" has killed far more people than Hitler, in much worse ways even, or has certainly stood by and let it happen by inaction. That's hardly anything to be impressed by. I'm amazed how quickly humans get thrown under the bus for "evil acts" and this "God" gets a pat on the back for supposedly bothering to save a token few every now and then.

[molson]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

He gives us a choice. Believe or don't. How bout this - he sends his son down to earth to die for our sins, and all we as humans have to do is believe this happened. However, a great multitude of us don't. That's not very "nice" either, is it?

Everybody has a different lot in life, and they come to that information in different ways, or not at all.

-A lot of people have never heard of Jesus.
-A lot people (some of them great scientists that cure diseases), are born with a skeptical mind and could never bring their heart to accept such things, even though they tried
-A lot of people are born into comfortable Christian homes, are born with a desire to belong and be accepted, and a belief is easy.

Belief is not a choice. I can't chose to believe, if I don't. It's not really up to me. It's based on my experiences and personality traits. Would God be satisified if I told everyone I believed, went to church, lived a good "Christian" life, but just had nagging doubts that prevented me from ever really "believing"? No, he'd send me to hell.

I also think Heaven must be a pretty sorrowfull place. I mean could guys really have a huge party or whatever up there knowing that millions of GOOD people are suffering and burning below, just because they didn't have the capacity to believe (or that they didn't "choose" to believe). I wouldn't want to be in a heaven where that exists, where people can happily life forever, not giving a shit that other people are suffering. I would honestly rather cease to exist. (I wouldn't prefer hell, of course, but again, no point in pretending how I feel to a God).

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You know, if you replaced "God" with "the government", you'd be an anarchist.

At least I don't anoint them with supernatural abilities, nor do I place blind faith in it either.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

And assuming the story is true, why should this influence me to even tolerate this "God" at all? Telling me "God" is so horrible that they would intentionally put living creatures through this is hardly going to win me over.

God's responsibility isn't to give you a nice, warm fuzzy to influence you to tolerate Him. Again, it's your choice.

If we were to look at this from God's point of view (which I really can't, but I'll give it a shot), God creates the universe, the planets, the stars and eventually man. Puts man on this world, who screws it up by sinning, then gives man an out clause by sacrificing his own son. Yet, man has the bozaks to say, "hey thanks, but uh...I need something more to influence me to tolerate You."

Not flaming you in particular (and if you take it that way, I pre-apologize), just trying to put it in a perspective outside our own, which is inherently human and all the frailties associated with it.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

At the end of the day, "God" is either letting bad things happen, forcing bad things to happen, or powerless to interact in a good or bad way at all. Given that, why should I care whether "God" exists, much less bothering to "worship" this "God" entity? Assuming "God" does exist, they don't carry much influence with me.

I might not be communicating things very well. My point isn't about whether God does or does not exist, but rather about what motivates the theist vs the atheist. If all will be dust, what motivates the atheist to convince others to adopt their position?

You may not care about whether or not God exists, but I would suspect that many religious people would care whether you care. Most would seem to have a good reason for caring, the state of your eternal soul. What I'm trying to get at is why the atheist cares about convincing the religious if it's all going to be dust. What is at stake if everything is going to nothing? I'm trying to wrap my head around a potential answer and I'm stumped.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

This "God" has killed far more people than Hitler, in much worse ways even, or has certainly stood by and let it happen by inaction. That's hardly anything to be impressed by. I'm amazed how quickly humans get thrown under the bus for "evil acts" and this "God" gets a pat on the back for supposedly bothering to save a token few every now and then.

Dude, we all die. What's important is what happens after our death.

We're put on this earth to make our choice. What man does on this earth, and the horrible things he perpetrates on each other has nothing to do with God.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

This "God" has killed far more people than Hitler, in much worse ways even, or has certainly stood by and let it happen by inaction. That's hardly anything to be impressed by. I'm amazed how quickly humans get thrown under the bus for "evil acts" and this "God" gets a pat on the back for supposedly bothering to save a token few every now and then.

It's particularly bothersome to me when people credit god for saving a relative's life. It's basically an implication that god didn't give enough of a shit to do the same for me (or other people who lost relative or friends).

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by molson

Belief is not a choice. I can't chose to believe, if I don't. It's not really up to me. It's based on my experiences and personality traits. Would God be satisified if I told everyone I believed, went to church, lived a good "Christian" life, but just had nagging doubts that prevented me from ever really "believing"? No, he'd send me to hell.

I also think Heaven must be a pretty sorrowfull place. I mean could guys really have a huge party or whatever up there knowing that millions of GOOD people are suffering and burning below, just because they didn't have the capacity to believe (or that they didn't "choose" to believe). I wouldn't want to be in a heaven where that exists, where people can happily life forever, not giving a shit that other people are suffering. I would honestly rather cease to exist. (I wouldn't prefer hell, of course, but again, no point in pretending how I feel to a God).

How are you defining good here? And where does this definition come from?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I might not be communicating things very well. My point isn't about whether God does or does not exist, but rather about what motivates the theist vs the atheist. If all will be dust, what motivates the atheist to convince others to adopt their position?

I don't think they care as much as religious people. I think most don't care at all, except to the extent that they see their friends make destructive decisions that are based soley on religion (which doesn't happen that often, because like I said, Christianity is pretty compatable with most people's non-religious lives)

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

God's responsibility isn't to give you a nice, warm fuzzy to influence you to tolerate Him. Again, it's your choice.

Good. How wonderful...

If we were to look at this from God's point of view (which I really can't, but I'll give it a shot), God creates the universe, the planets, the stars and eventually man. Puts man on this world, who screws it up by sinning, then gives man an out clause by sacrificing his own son. Yet, man has the bozaks to say, "hey thanks, but uh...I need something more to influence me to tolerate You."

I didn't ask him to kill anybody, but then "God" never asks. "God" just does whatever the hell it feels like and expects to be loved for it.

Not flaming you in particular (and if you take it that way, I pre-apologize), just trying to put it in a perspective outside our own, which is inherently human and all the frailties associated with it.

Honestly, no position based in mythology is going to bother me at all. You could just as well be warning me about cracked mirrors, blacked cats, and walking under ladders.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

How are you defining good here? And where does this definition come from?

Let's say a good person that donates time and money to charity, seeks to help people out wherever he can, forgoes a higher-paid career so he can work full time towards issues he feels strongly about.

But if that person is also born with the personality trait of a scientific mind - he's burning in hell. The good doesn't mean shit.

I think maybe 500 years ago, "goodness" in the world was motivated by religion. Today, not so much. The human species has developed its own morality. So what do we need god for?

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by molson

It's particularly bothersome to me when people credit god for saving a relative's life. It's basically an implication that god didn't give enough of a shit to do the same for me (or other people who lost relative or friends).

That's because we only have the human context of our lives as we see them now. To a non-believer, this is it. To a believer, it isn't. Hey, we all get stuck in that trap - I don't want to die in a grisly accident, or feel pain, etc., and it's very difficult to think "outside the box" (so to speak) towards eternal life.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I might not be communicating things very well. My point isn't about whether God does or does not exist, but rather about what motivates the theist vs the atheist. If all will be dust, what motivates the atheist to convince others to adopt their position?

I do not really care whether anybody agrees with me or not, as long as they don't force me to live under laws influenced solely by their religion.

You may not care about whether or not God exists, but I would suspect that many religious people would care whether you care. Most would seem to have a good reason for caring, the state of your eternal soul. What I'm trying to get at is why the atheist cares about convincing the religious if it's all going to be dust. What is at stake if everything is going to nothing? I'm trying to wrap my head around a potential answer and I'm stumped.

I don't care. You can believe we all turn into pink elephants when we die, and it wouldn't bother me at all until you start trying to force laws based on the "pink elephants when we die" religion upon others.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Dude, we all die. What's important is what happens after our death.

I agree, which is why I am in favor of "green cemeteries", where the body can naturally return to the soil to be used as food for plants and other creatures.

We're put on this earth to make our choice. What man does on this earth, and the horrible things he perpetrates on each other has nothing to do with God.

We're "put" on this earth for the same reason everything else is here. When this planet is no longer capable of sustaining human life, we will cease to live here.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think they care as much as religious people. I think most don't care at all, except to the extent that they see their friends make destructive decisions that are based soley on religion (which doesn't happen that often, because like I said, Christianity is pretty compatable with most people's non-religious lives)

So are you saying the atheist really doesn't care about other people as much as the religious do with respect what others believe? That's an interesting statement and you may be right. I don't know. But it seems that when push comes to shove and they are questioned about their beliefs, they care deeply. The discussion on this board would seem to speak to that.

You did say that atheists care when their friends make destructive decisions. But what does it matter if all is dust? What does it matter if one thing is destructive and another is not?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

You did say that atheists care when their friends make destructive decisions. But what does it matter if all is dust? What does it matter if one thing is destructive and another is not?

Because, just like believers who cry at funerals, they will miss their friends when they are gone. If anything, I would expect believers to be much happier when someone dies than they generally seem to be and for atheists to be quite upset when people they love are trying to destroy the only life they get.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by molson

I think maybe 500 years ago, "goodness" in the world was motivated by religion. Today, not so much. The human species has developed its own morality. So what do we need god for?

I'm curious about this moral code that the human species has developed without using religion over the past 500 years. Can you provide some examples?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

So are you saying the atheist really doesn't care about other people as much as the religious do with respect what others believe? That's an interesting statement and you may be right. I don't know. But it seems that when push comes to shove and they are questioned about their beliefs, they care deeply. The discussion on this board would seem to speak to that.

You did say that atheists care when their friends make destructive decisions. But what does it matter if all is dust? What does it matter if one thing is destructive and another is not?

I think there's a lot more atheists than people think. Or at least athesit-leaning agnostics.

Most people say they believe that there's some kind of "god" but they do absolutely nothing to practice any religion. Maybe they show up an occasional Sunday, but it's a chore.

I don't think most of these athesist-leaning agnostics care what anyone else's relgious beliefs are.

Your second paragraph is a commonly held idea that I just don't have for some reason. Even if one believes there's no afterlife, I just don't think that makes this life meaningless. I care if a friend does anything self-destructive - becomes a drug adddict, gets married to a woman that's bad for him, etc. Are you asking why I care about stuff like that if we're all turning to dust anyway? All I can say is I care about it deeply, even though I think we're all turning to dust anyway.

It's a state of mind. I could die and be nothing at any moment. That effects my life to SOME degree, but not as much as you'd think. I'm less willing to take a job I hate because it might pay off in 10 years, for example.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I do not really care whether anybody agrees with me or not, as long as they don't force me to live under laws influenced solely by their religion.

Imposing values question aside, now I think we're getting somewhere closer to an answer to my question. So you're suggesting that atheists care deeply because they want to live a life where they don't have to be subject to any laws that are influenced by religion. But why is living in this place so important? What is the value of living free of religion if all is going to dust? You seem to suggest that there is some utopia out there that will be better than the world where people believe in pink elephants. But if both places end up in dust, why is one better than another?

Btw, I think I'll stop asking the question at this point.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by molson

All I can say is I care about it deeply, even though I think we're all turning to dust anyway.

That's an interesting statement too. Maybe that is the answer to my question. And this answer actually sounds very religious to me. It sounds similar to the general tone of what Cronin has been expressing in this thread. It's like you can't articulate this knowledge, but you know you have it. It sounds a lot like faith...

[molson]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm curious about this moral code that the human species has developed without using religion over the past 500 years. Can you provide some examples?

Any value that you might have. Don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, be nice to your parents, etc. Those are all Christian values. Today, most people possess them even if they're not Christian, and even if they're atheists.

I can only assume that this wasn't the case 500 years ago (or more). You either had Christian values, or you didn't and were a criminal. I belive religion came around (obviously longer ago than that), as way to keep people in line, and behave in an orderly way that was good for mutual prosperity of a group.

Today, people without religion have the same values as people with religion. The only differences are on the fringes (sex, aborition), and the whole thing about believing in Jesus or facing hell.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

That's an interesting statement too. And it actually sounds very religious to me. It sounds similar to the general tone of what Cronin has been expressing in this thread. It's like you can't articulate this knowledge, but you know you have it.

Right, there's a certain spirtuality to it, that I can't articulate. Or if not spirtuality, being at peace with how the world is (or how I think it is)

If I have a "religion", it's a religion of people and not of "gods". Most religions tell us how horrible we are, etc, and I don't see that. And I have better vantage point than a "god" would. I think humans are pretty amazingly good creatures. When one acts in their own self-interest to hurt others - we're shocked. There's something "wrong" with that person - they're not one of us. When one fully throws their loyalty and compassion behind the human race, "god" starts to seem like an enemy.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

But why is living in this place so important?

Because I see value in living my one life in a place where laws are based on science and data that can be studied and debated, rather than some religious text/beliefs that cannot be quantified. Maybe you have to live in the "Bible Belt" to understand what it is like.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Sorry - I didn't make myself clear. Instead of God's eye, let's use our eye, if we consider we have eternal souls. If that is indeed the truth, then the bad events that occur during our lifetime really won't matter than much when we're living 15.2 billion years from now.

I have no idea why certain bad things happen to some people and not others. I'm not sure we can even hope to comprehend the wisdom of all events - they just are. Not the answer you were looking for, I'm sure, but just like the agnostic or atheist, I don't have the answers to everything.

About the way we die - again, didn't make myself clear. I wasn't speaking of the moral repercussions, merely the act of dying. To the eternal soul, I really doubt the method of death would matter that much.

Ah, that makes a lot of sense then. Thanks!

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Because I see value in living my one life in a place where laws are based on science and data that can be studied and debated, rather than some religious text/beliefs that cannot be quantified. Maybe you have to live in the "Bible Belt" to understand what it is like.

This reminds of a relatively large local insurance company who uses actuarial tables to maximize the efficiency of their workforce. So they work their employees like dogs until they are 45-50 and then offer them severance or fire them. Their data tables tell them that employees produce the most up until their mid 40s and then their production falls off so the company gets rid of them. Undoubtedly, this company has studied the situation and they've debated the productivity numbers and chosen to take this course of action.

Not the kind of quantitatively-based actuarial world I want to live in.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by molson

Any value that you might have. Don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, be nice to your parents, etc. Those are all Christian values. Today, most people possess them even if they're not Christian, and even if they're atheists.

I can only assume that this wasn't the case 500 years ago (or more). You either had Christian values, or you didn't and were a criminal. I belive religion came around (obviously longer ago than that), as way to keep people in line, and behave in an orderly way that was good for mutual prosperity of a group.

Today, people without religion have the same values as people with religion. The only differences are on the fringes (sex, aborition), and the whole thing about believing in Jesus or facing hell.

I'm sorry Molson, but I don't think this is a very well thought out argument. You orginally said that we have "developed" our own morality. Now you seem to be suggesting we've taken the good ideas that were developed by religious societies and are now saying they're "religion optional". Are there/Have their been atheistic societies that have created these same moral values without the influence of religion? And if we've outgrown the need for "God", then who's to say we haven't outgrown the need for the rules that we've traditionally believed came from that God?

And I'd hardly call sex and abortion "fringe issues". Ultimately, those are very big philosophical issues that we love to argue about in a political manner.

I guess what puzzles me about your statement is that you have absolutely no proof to back it up. You're relying on your assumptions of what life was like 500 years ago in order to justify your position today. It's intellectual laziness. A man of faith may not be able to point to empirical evidence to prove why he believes the way he does, but a man who relies on history should be able to.

[molson]

I'm not writing a thesis here, and am definitely not in a position to provide "proof" for anything I'm saying. ("Proof" is a funny demand in a discussion about religion, isn't it?)

I'm not making an argument, I'm just stating my beliefs.

I'm not saying that people developed any of these morals on their own. Clearly religion did it. That's the whole point, that's why religion exists. But now, IMO, these values have become so a part of our non-religious culuture that religion has become obsolete. I don't need to believe that Christ died for our sins for me not to cheat on my wife.

And when I said people "developed" their own morality, I mean that they've showed a clear ability to develop morally without religion.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

It depends on the person I guess.

I don't have any huge aspirations for my time on the planet. I want to have fun, make some friends, and try not to cause too much trouble for anyone.

Life's too exhausting as is it to "make the most" out of everything. What does that even mean? Going to art museums? I'd rather play a text sim. Traveling? I do that as much as I can afford.

My life makes sense to me at the moment, I enjoy it, I know what I want to accomplish, and then after that I'll be dead (and by then, I think I'll be more than ready for it - I have some days now where I'm ready for it). And if I die tragically before then, that's life. I'm sure my friends will remember me even more fondly then if I kicked off in 50 years, so in that sense, I'll still be around for a while, and will have an impact on people's lives.

Dude - are we like sharing the same brain? That's pretty much exactly my thoughts on the subject:

The vast majority of people throughout time (with the exception of names that we all know, which is what small % of the total number of humans that have ever lived?) are born, live their lives, and die, with no appreciable impact on the world aside from the progeny that they leave, who, odds are, will share the exact same fate. For most of us, our lives are inherently inconsequential, and meaningless (beyond the meaning that we give to them through our interpersonal relationships). We are all alloted a limited number of ticks of the ole ticker, and when those run out, our time is up and we're worm-food. So what's important is that we each live our lives to the fullest. It's that whole "live each moment like it's your last" thing. If you're happier playing text sims then going to an art museum or traveling, it's your life...do what makes you happy.

It's why I should also be less hesitant to go massively into debt -because in the end what does that debt really matter? I'll be worm-food and it'll be gone (unless I have a family to tie it to). If that debt can finance me enjoying my life more, then I should go for it.

I also credit that belief with my great work-life balance - when the clock hits 5 (or 5:30 occasionally), I'm out the door. Those are MY ticks. My time to enjoy.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Additionally, what of the child who repeatedly hears that there is no god and merely believes what they're told? Why is this child in a different position than the child who has been subjected to religious teaching?Both grow up in environments that shape who they are. Dawkins wants to argue that religious belief is not valid because most religious people grow up in religious homes. Does this mean that if an atheist grows up in an atheistic home that this person's beliefs are not valid? It's a very deterministic argument that doesn't seem to hold up very well.

That's where its different from a christian household. The child is NOT TAUGHT that there is no god. Do you remind your children everyday that there is no boogeyman, santa claus etc? Religion isnt mentioned. If they ask what I think I tell them but by the time, they atleast have the ability to wonder and may have an open mind.

[Noop]

Can God and Free-Will Exist?

Because if God is omnipotent then something like free will is useless because God already knows what will happen.

Yet if free-will does exist then God is not God because God should be able to see the future and if God can't see them future he/she is not God.

Either we are helpless because out lives are predetermined or we are free and the person called God is not God.

As for Jesus, Cesare Borgia is reportedly the man people have been praying too.

Cesare Borgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Dutch]

Can God and Free-Will Exist?

Because if God is omnipotent then something like free will is useless because God already knows what will happen.

Have you never heard of House-Rules? The Fog of War feature?

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Have you never heard of House-Rules? The Fog of War feature?

What is the point? God wants a challenge? What can possibly be a challenge to an omnipotent God?

[bignej]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Imposing values question aside, now I think we're getting somewhere closer to an answer to my question. So you're suggesting that atheists care deeply because they want to live a life where they don't have to be subject to any laws that are influenced by religion. But why is living in this place so important? What is the value of living free of religion if all is going to dust? You seem to suggest that there is some utopia out there that will be better than the world where people believe in pink elephants. But if both places end up in dust, why is one better than another?

Btw, I think I'll stop asking the question at this point.

You question doesn't make any sense. Its the exact opposite of the point you are trying to make. The answer on why we care about this place is because it all that we have or that anyone knows of. We all have human instincts and feelings and emotions. Religion is not required to have love. My mother died last year and I cried because I feel that I will never see here again. Why did my christian family cry when they are "sure" they will see her again in Heaven? Its funny that you talk about living some utopia that will be better than the rest of the world because isnt that exactly what heaven is?

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm sorry Molson, but I don't think this is a very well thought out argument. You orginally said that we have "developed" our own morality. Now you seem to be suggesting we've taken the good ideas that were developed by religious societies and are now saying they're "religion optional". Are there/Have their been atheistic societies that have created these same moral values without the influence of religion? And if we've outgrown the need for "God", then who's to say we haven't outgrown the need for the rules that we've traditionally believed came from that God?

And I'd hardly call sex and abortion "fringe issues". Ultimately, those are very big philosophical issues that we love to argue about in a political manner.

I guess what puzzles me about your statement is that you have absolutely no proof to back it up. You're relying on your assumptions of what life was like 500 years ago in order to justify your position today. It's intellectual laziness. A man of faith may not be able to point to empirical evidence to prove why he believes the way he does, but a man who relies on history should be able to.

Morality did not come out of religion, Cam. There were societies with legal structures (which obviously reflect a sense of morality) well before the gods became associated with morality. The purpose of very early religions was to explain natural phenomena and beg the gods for aid against the destructive ones and enemies. The gods were often rogues and of very dubious morality. I can't remember off the top of my head which religious figure was first associated with morality - I think it was somewhere around 600 BC, I'll see if I can find it - but there were definitely societies which had moral codes before religion defined them.

It's also not difficult to make an argument that moral codes are an evolutionary consequence - to be very simplistic a society that allows the killing of fellow citizens is not going to survive too long so "thou shalt not kill" definitely gives a society a survival advantage. Most moral statements stem from the idea of "treat others as you wish to be treated" and when cooperation between individuals leads to a survival advantage as it does with a species so physically weak as ours then this idea is clearly useful.

[molson]

Originally Posted by bignej

Why did my christian family cry when they are "sure" they will see her again in Heaven?

Another thing I always wondered - why do Christians treat death (espeically painless death) as a tragedy?

I can see the need to feel that "they're in the better place now", but if they REALLY believed that, why aren't they happy about it?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Dude - are we like sharing the same brain? That's pretty much exactly my thoughts on the subject:

The vast majority of people throughout time (with the exception of names that we all know, which is what small % of the total number of humans that have ever lived?) are born, live their lives, and die, with no appreciable impact on the world aside from the progeny that they leave, who, odds are, will share the exact same fate. For most of us, our lives are inherently inconsequential, and meaningless (beyond the meaning that we give to them through our interpersonal relationships). We are all alloted a limited number of ticks of the ole ticker, and when those run out, our time is up and we're worm-food. So what's important is that we each live our lives to the fullest. It's that whole "live each moment like it's your last" thing. If you're happier playing text sims then going to an art museum or traveling, it's your life...do what makes you happy.

It's why I should also be less hesitant to go massively into debt -because in the end what does that debt really matter? I'll be worm-food and it'll be gone (unless I have a family to tie it to). If that debt can finance me enjoying my life more, then I should go for it.

I also credit that belief with my great work-life balance - when the clock hits 5 (or 5:30 occasionally), I'm out the door. Those are MY ticks. My time to enjoy.

Of course the problem with this mentality is that when you die massively in debt, then the companies you are in debt to assume that debt. And if enough people have your mentality, eventually those companies go out of business, leaving behind many "inconsequential" people unemployed and unable to care for their families.

It's also shortsighted in that you may go massively into debt on the assumption that you will never have anyone in your life that would be responsible for that debt... only to find the love of your life 5 years from now.

"Do what makes you happy" also has its limits, given that your happiness may ultimately negatively impact MY happiness. In fact, replacing "do unto others" with "do what makes you feel good" would seem to be a great step back in terms of moral development, not a progressive step forward.

Finally, as to the inconsequence of our lives, I can only say that many people who are footnotes in history (or less) have had almost unimaginable impacts on our lives. Sometimes the ones we remember are just the ones with better publicists.

I could rattle off ten or more names that you've never heard of who I guarantee have had an impact on your every day life. Is fame a necessary pre-requisite for doing something greater than yourself?

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by bignej

That's where its different from a christian household. The child is NOT TAUGHT that there is no god. Do you remind your children everyday that there is no boogeyman, santa claus etc? Religion isnt mentioned. If they ask what I think I tell them but by the time, they atleast have the ability to wonder and may have an open mind.

This seems to be a pretty determinist position. Isn't there an assumption here that the one growing up in a religious home automatically adopts the beliefs of that home? So the child growing up in a religious home has no option but to be close-minded? I don't see that holding for a lot of people who have grown up in religious homes and then turned their back on faith. At some point, they developed an open mind and apparently choose beliefs for themselves.

I think we disagree about what constitutes teaching. I think parents are always teaching their children whether they explain this teaching in words or not. Kids watch their Moms and Dads and learn a whole lot more by watching than by anything their parents tell them. In this sense, never talking about a higher power at all is still teaching the child that this discussion isn't important/relevant. The action of not saying anything about it is loud. So from that determinist point of view, the child grows up believing that discussion isn't important or relevant.

I don't buy the determinist point of view on either side, but it seems to be an argument made against the religious that supposedly invalidates their beliefs. It doesn't seem persuasive to me.

[bignej]

Shouldn't it go something like this.

Dad: Son, your mom passed away today and will be in a better place at Gods side in heaven.

Son: (jealous) Lucky. I sure hope I die soon, especially since I've accepted Jesus. The longer I'm alive, the more chances to screw it up.

My extremely devout mother-in-law recently survived breast cancer. I used to openly ask why any true believer would accept treatment given the prize at the end. God has a plan after all and will choose if you live or die. Needless to say, I never mentioned this to her and thankfully she accepted treatment.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Of course the problem with this mentality is that when you die massively in debt, then the companies you are in debt to assume that debt. And if enough people have your mentality, eventually those companies go out of business, leaving behind many "inconsequential" people unemployed and unable to care for their families.

It's also shortsighted in that you may go massively into debt on the assumption that you will never have anyone in your life that would be responsible for that debt... only to find the love of your life 5 years from now.

of course, and this is exactly what keeps me from going massively into debt to finance my enjoyable life - the realization that I am buying into Rousseau's "social contract" if you will (if we can coopt that phrase).

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

"Do what makes you happy" also has its limits, given that your happiness may ultimately negatively impact MY happiness. In fact, replacing "do unto others" with "do what makes you feel good" would seem to be a great step back in terms of moral development, not a progressive step forward.

Agreed again. I think my initial post came off as too "state of nature" / anarchist. I simply meant do whatever makes you happy while living within the framework of civilized society (aka: if being a mass-murderer makes you happy, you're SOL. But if playing text sims all day makes you happy and you can support yourself somehow, go for it.)

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Finally, as to the inconsequence of our lives, I can only say that many people who are footnotes in history (or less) have had almost unimaginable impacts on our lives. Sometimes the ones we remember are just the ones with better publicists.

I could rattle off ten or more names that you've never heard of who I guarantee have had an impact on your every day life. Is fame a necessary pre-requisite for doing something greater than yourself?

I don't think I ever said fame was a prerequisite. Simply put, the number of people who have had an impact is staggeringly small. Whether we're all familiar with their names or not. Given that is somewhat a product of the length of recorded history, etc. I will grant you that. And that's not to say that someone can't have an impact, just that the majority of people are in professions where they won't. (Maybe this is just my cynicism about being employed in the financial sector to a degree.)

But the architect working in the cubicle across the hallway - even if he designs the most beautiful, wonderful building - is that going to have a measurable impact? Nope. It's still just a building. Maybe it's pretty and it makes people smile and go "wow." And that's certainly nothing to scoff at, I'm not saying that. He can take pride in that. But someday that building is going to get torn down to make room for another, and then nothing of what he's done will survive. The truth of the matter is that the greatest impact most of us can hope to have on the world is by aspiring to greater heights for our children than we achieved ourselves.

The numbers and percentages may be higher/lower in varying fields (medicine, science, etc), but for your average joe-schmo who's say a budget-analyst for the government? He's not going to contribute anything lasting. Maybe he finds a way to save some money, but that money is just going to be swallowed up by the federal budget as a whole and go to building a bridge to an island in Alaska with fewer people than work on the block that I'm sitting on right now (not trying to start a partisan political argument, just using an example of pork-barrel spending).

Not to say that's a bad thing, or that means he shouldn't try his best to do his job or anything, it's just a fact.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

This seems to be a pretty determinist position. Isn't there an assumption here that the one growing up in a religious home automatically adopts the beliefs of that home? So the child growing up in a religious home has no option but to be close-minded? I don't see that holding for a lot of people who have grown up in religious homes and then turned their back on faith. At some point, they developed an open mind and apparently choose beliefs for themselves.

I think we disagree about what constitutes teaching. I think parents are always teaching their children whether they explain this teaching in words or not. Kids watch their Moms and Dads and learn a whole lot more by watching than by anything their parents tell them. In this sense, never talking about a higher power at all is still teaching the child that this discussion isn't important/relevant. The action of not saying anything about it is loud. So from that determinist point of view, the child grows up believing that discussion isn't important or relevant.

I don't buy the determinist point of view on either side, but it seems to be an argument made against the religious that supposedly invalidates their beliefs. It doesn't seem persuasive to me.

You want them educated so they will know what Christianity, Islam etc. believe. You should not teach them a default stance. I don't think I ever said you are instantly close minded by growing up in a religious household. You can teach a child the importance of religions role in society without teaching them that a personal God is important to them. I hope I made that clear. I don't want to shield them from the worlds realities but also don't want to influence their personal belief in a creator. I think that is possible

BTW, I know a hell of alot more believers-turned-nonbelievers than I know nonbelievers-turned believers. The most you find is the "I once was lost" variety which usually still believed.