We’re not all atheists

2006 August 24

by thudfactor

Via Amanda at Pandagon, I’m drawn to this interview with Michael Shermer, the founder of the Skeptics Society:

Christians today might say, I don’t believe in Zeus, that was a silly superstition. Yet for many people that was a real god. So it turns out there are 10,000 gods and yet only one right one. That means we’re all atheists on 9,999 gods. The only difference between me and the believers is I’m an atheist on one more god. [ The Joys of Life Without God ]

Of this quote, Amanda says:

It describes how so many of us come to atheism in a nutshell [...] I think this is a pretty good quote and I’m going to stuff it in the brain for further use. [ We’re All Atheists ]

That would be a shame.

First of all, the argument is an abuse of the word “atheist.” Atheism means not having any theistic beliefs; once you adhere to a theistic belief, you are no longer an atheist. In no way can a Christian be called an “atheist” from a Hellenic standpoint.

There’s a second, more complex reason this is complete BS. Despite what Shermer assumes, believing in one religion does not have to mean you reject all others. Some monotheists get around this by assuming that all (or many) other gods are different and/or incomplete expressions of their own. And even though I’m a pagan, it doesn’t mean don’t believe in the Christian God—it just means I don’t believe everything he says. As far as the other pagan gods are concerned, Dave is Asatru and my gods’ names are Celtic, but that does not mean I disbelieve in his gods.

I continue to be amazed at how often the skeptics demonstrate such complete ignorance about what religion really is.

Comments leave one →

2006 August 24

Karan permalink

I am also continuously surprised that many people find spiritual belief incongruous with intelligent thinking of any sort.

2006 August 24

Renali permalink

“In no way can a Christian be called an â€œatheistâ€? from a Hellenic standpoint.”

You’re speaking from a polytheist standpoint whereas he is clearly speaking to monotheists with that “only my god is the real one” belief. However a Christian lacks a belief in Zeus, therefore they are atheists concerning Zeus. That’s the point. Monotheists reject all other gods but their own.

“I continue to be amazed at how often the skeptics demonstrate such complete ignorance about what religion really is.”

I continue to be amazed at how often believers move the goal posts, redefine words and rearrange their beliefs when they are questioned. TO which I mean, if you ask three people what god is and you’re likely to get three different answers. With such a flimsy, arbitrary foundation as religion, it is impossible for the non-believer to be able to satisfy all believers when discussing religion. If I try to define god, you’re likely to dispute my definition. Then, should we arrive at one you do accept, another theist will object. It never ends because none of you agree - even within the confines of separate religions. I.e . Baptists don’t like Catholics, Methodists poke fun at Lutherans. etc. How are non-believers (even those raised in theistic homes) supposed to have a solid grasp on that which even the believers have no grasp on?

~~~

“I am also continuously surprised that many people find spiritual belief incongruous with intelligent thinking of any sort.”

This is unfortunately true, but it comes from what we see. Think about it from our perspective. From Intelligent Design (which is just Creationism in a cheap suit) to aparitions of deities on grilled cheese sandwiches, it is abundantly clear to the outsider that believers — who are normally senisble, practical people — chuck all reason and logic out the window the moment the word “god” is spoken. People who don’t believe in unicorns or fairies, suddenly have no problem believing in virgin births, or walking on water, etc. (I use Christianity so much because I’m American and that’s the biggest game in town)

I’ve yet to meet an atheist who thinks that someone who believes in god is automatically mentally inferior. But, keep in mind that the of those who claim to believe, the loudest are usually the worst examples. Think Falwell, Dobson, or Hovind. If these types of lying asshats are all you ever hear from (check out the FSTDT archive sometime) it tends to become indicative of the whole.

2006 August 24

thudfactor permalink

Welcome, Renali!

You say:

However a Christian lacks a belief in Zeus, therefore they are atheists concerning Zeus.

I very much disagree; the various definitions I’ve seen of atheism require a lack of belief in deity _in general_. It’s disbelief in all deities, not disbelief in a diety. Once you start using atheism in a specific sense — a “Zeus atheist” or a “Jesus atheist” — the word becomes incoherent.

You also say:

“I continue to be amazed at how often believers move the goal posts, redefine words and rearrange their beliefs when they are questioned. TO which I mean, if you ask three people what god is and youâ€™re likely to get three different answers.”

If you ask people to name three different animals, you might get three different answers, too. That’s not because biologists are moving the goal posts, it’s because the concept of “animal” is very complex, and incorporates wildly varied forms of life. So it is with religion. The varieties of religious experience are not fabricated to confound atheist arguments; they are genuine and ancient.

The problem is not that the we keep “move[ing] the goal posts.” The problem is that atheists like Shermer pretend all games are football.

2006 August 25

Gary permalink

I think you’re reading more into this than Shermer really meant. To us non-believers, it seems many theists (in particular, Christians) live in mortal fear of the idea of being a non-believer. “How can you possibly live like that?” I’ve been asked. “How can you live a life devoid of belief?” I think what Shermer’s doing in part is pointing out that non-belief is not so foreign to these individuals as they seem to think. “I could never survive if I didn’t believe in God!” I’ve heard. “You already do, in a certain sense,” is how Shermer is responding.

2006 August 25

thudfactor permalink

I think you’re reading a more sensible argument into the statement. His realy argument is “if I am not believing in 9,999 gods already, it’s not that much of a stretch to just disbelieve in one more”; the answer is part of a response to the question “What’s your best answer for why there is no God?”

In any case, it’s not “just one more God” — an areligious worldview is radically different, no matter how many gods you worship.

2006 August 25

Fred permalink

Seems like both sides can twist the English language to fit their own way of thinking. Actually, a person who follows one belief system could be considered atheistIC by the standards of another system. The key here is the last two letters, -IC. An atheist has his/her own guidelines and beliefs, as already pointed out. Someone who is atheistic is “in the manner of an atheist” in the views of another. Teistic or atheistic describes the particular state of being; Theist or Atheist is a label for the person’s belief -or lack of such. This whole issue is like the differences between “German” and “Germanic” peoples -or the Helenistic and Helenist civilizations. Likewise, there’s a huge difference between someone being Pagan and paganic. You’re taking two different words and making them fit your purposes. In other words, both sides are maligning the language.

2006 August 25

thudfactor permalink

I’m still not convinced. “Atheist” has a very clear meaning — someone who does not believe in gods. Someone who does not believe in my god is just a non-believer; only at the point that they reject all gods do they become an atheist.

And as I pointed out above, god-belief is not the only distinguishing factor; the worldviews are very different. For example, a Jew may disbelieve Zeus because the Shema says there is only one God, and that is the God of Israel. On the other hand, an atheist tends to disbelieve in Zeus because there’s no scientific evidence. The former takes a position based on other religious authority, the latter based on scientific authority. The Jew cannot be fairly called “atheistic” because the Jewish worldview *still* shares much with the Hellenist worldview — there is at least one god, that god is personal, that god may involve himself in human affairs, that god can be communicated with, etc. None of that can be said of the atheist.

Calling a religious person atheist because he or she does not beleive in some other god radically minimizes the differences between atheism and god-belief, which I am sure is Shermer’s point; he wants to say we are all just a hair’s breadth away from atheism anyway, so why not go all the way?

2006 August 25

Renali permalink

Thanks for the welcome.

“I very much disagree; the various definitions I\â€™ve seen of atheism require a lack of belief in deity in general. It\â€™s disbelief in all deities, not disbelief in a diety. Once you start using atheism in a specific senseâ€”a \â€?Zeus atheist\â€? or a \â€?Jesus atheist\â€?â€”the word becomes incoherent.”

That’s fair. You’re not wrong. A lot of people tell me that they don’t believe I don’t believe or can’t imagine life without god. The Zeus example is a way to show theists that the know exactly what it’s like to be an atheist. Yes, it does cloud the definition - however no one actually uses the word in this way ( i.e. zeus atheist, etc). It’s just an attempt at explaining to theists that atheism isn’t at all foreign to them.

“If you ask people to name three different animals, you might get three different answers, too. That\â€™s not because biologists are moving the goal posts, it\â€™s because the concept of \â€?animal\â€? is very complex, and incorporates wildly varied forms of life. So it is with religion. The varieties of religious experience are not fabricated to confound atheist arguments; they are genuine and ancient.

The problem is not that the we keep \â€?move the goal posts.\â€? The problem is that atheists like Shermer pretend all games are football.”

I disagree, though I see your point. I wouldn’t say that atheists think “all games are football” - though I can see how that impression is made. It’s more that we tend to be facts and logic people who expect terms to be clearly defined before debating them. It is impossible to get such a definition of god. Therefore, it is close to impossible to nail down something specific in order to debate it. Then, inevitably a theist will tell us we just don’t know god. Since they can’t define it with any sort of consistency, I have to think they don’t know either.

And that’s kind of the point. Theists who tell us that we will burn in hell forever or that god likes things to be this way, or even that god loves us - aren’t speaking from any sort of facts or logic. They’re telling us what they want to be true. People who state with certainty what god wants, or who god favors (etc etc) have absolutely no way of knowing any of it is true. Given that, I don’t understand how I’m supposed to be convinced that any of it is true.

2006 August 25

thudfactor permalink

You say:

The Zeus example is a way to show theists that the know exactly what itâ€™s like to be an atheist.

As I expressed to Gary, I don’t think that’s the way Shermer intended it. And while I see how it can be used that way, I also don’t think it’s particularly effective. When someone says “I don’t know how you can live without believing in God” they probably mean “I don’t know how you can live without a religious worldview.” All but the most shallow of religious thinkers (the kinds atheist message boards tend to draw, unfortunately) are able to look at other religions and see how they are analagous to the one they hold. Of course, the more different the religion, the less they can connect with it personally.

As to your last two ‘graphs, I tend to agree with you. While a scientific proof of god or gods might be possible, I think it’s unlikely any time soon. In its pureset form, I think religion is primarily a fuzzy response to personal experience with the numinous, and as such I think it’s impossible to evangelize on a rational basis.

When I squawk at atheists, it’s not because they don’t believe. It tends to be because they are making a grossly ignorant argument out of knee-jerk intolerance and calling it the “rational position.” Usually they do this by saying “religion” when they mean “Fundamentalist Evangelical Monotheism” and “theist” when they mean “Fundamentalist Evangelical Nutjob.”

2006 August 27

Ryan J permalink

I disagree, man very, very, intelligent people find religion the only answer to the hopelessness of the world. To say such arrogant things without understanding who you are in essence calling stupid is stupid in itself.

Christians condemn people of other religions, and that seems so heartless, because to people that dont have the same chance to be christian, who grow up learning of another god, with the same or a similar consequence if they convert to christianity.

Christians claim to know something that they really only believe (although maybe a fine line)

More often than not, christians are only christian mostly because they were told to be.

However, people like me need a reason to live, and the only solution is a god, or higher power. People like me can’t live for the day-to-day superficial aspects of life. If there is no higher power, then there is no meaning to moral values, for they are just inventions of man, fabricated, just like the petty rules of which fork to use for the salad. I mean, what meaning is there in a life that has no greater calling than living itself. I realize that most of you have no clue what im talking about, and think this is a bunch of BS. Personally, I’d rather believe there is some hope left in this world for finding a meaning to my life even if that isnt true. For most people, Accomplishment, love, and acceptance are all there is to life, and that is fucking sad. All of these things end when you die. Things like “curse words” offend so many, when the sound of the word, not the meaning, offends them, just because they were told to. I mean, try thinking for yourself. Rethink the traditions you hold in such high regard. In my perspective, society seems so hopelessly ignorant that almost everyone will never seriously question what they have been told since they were 3 years old. Now when asked “So what are you”, its obvious they are asking about your profession, because thats all that seems to matter for most people… What you “contribute” to society. Well while you waste your life making these meager contributions, the society that you live in is nothing but a meaningless organization of mammals, who were created by chance with some scientific explanation that i dont care to understand.

Oh well, i guess im just trying to express myself, like the rest of you, but instead of just reading the “BS” that i typed, try really thinking about the meaning behind the ideas that i throw out there, because if you have no belief in a higher power, your belief in your precious moral values is false.

2006 August 28

thudfactor permalink

Welcome, Ryan!

You say:

If there is no higher power, then there is no meaning to moral values, for they are just inventions of man, fabricated, just like the petty rules of which fork to use for the salad. [...] if you have no belief in a higher power, your belief in your precious moral values is false.

I hear this kind of thing alot, but no one seems willing to explain it much further. Personally, I find far more meaning in daily life than I do the standard conservative Christian meaning — “glorifying God.” I can’t see much deeper meaning in traditional Christianity. What kind of meaning does your religion offer you, and why is it better, deeper, more real, or more permanent because your meaning comes from deity?

2006 August 28

Fred permalink

Looks like my point is still being missed there. A Christian could and would be seen as atheistic from the viewpoint of a follower of Zeus. Likewise, a Pagan is atheistic in the eyes of a Christian. The true atheist believes in NO gods at all. But if I don’t believe in YOUR god, then to you I’m atheistic in that regard -not necessarily a certified, died-in-the-wool atheist. I only used the words Helenic and Helenistic as examples of the -ic addition to a word. I have no idea if Helenic peoples were atheists or not, and that’s beside the point and another discussion.

2006 August 28

Renali permalink

“People like me canâ€™t live for the day-to-day superficial aspects of life.”

Do you think this is what atheists live for?

“If there is no higher power, then there is no meaning to moral values, for they are just inventions of man, fabricated, just like the petty rules of which fork to use for the salad.”

I can’t disagree more. There is absolutely meaning to moral values in absence of a higher power. These moral values are what help to continue the human race. They are what form civilizations. I can’t see how injecting a higher power into this makes it some more meaningful.

For you to say that morals are arbitrary and have no meaning without a higher power scares me, frankly. It sounds very much like the only thing keeping some people from raping, pillaging and murdering is this promise of a nice comfy afterlife. Not only is that scary, its monumentally selfish.

“I mean, what meaning is there in a life that has no greater calling than living itself”

What greater cause is there than that? Throughout the history of the human race, your ancestors toiled and struggled and laughed and loved all to bring you here. You are a link in a chain that will help continue the human race. I can’t believe you don’t see the nobility and honor life - when there is only this life to attend to. What does believing in god have to do with meaning at all? Does praying to something you don’t know exists make you feel greater? Again, that’s extremely selfish as prayer does NOTHING BUT make YOU feel better. It does nothing for anyone else.

“Personally, Iâ€™d rather believe there is some hope left in this world for finding a meaning to my life even if that isnt true.”

Do you think atheists don’t have hope? Do you think we aren’t searching for meaning?

“For most people, Accomplishment, love, and acceptance are all there is to life, and that is fucking sad. All of these things end when you die.”

How in the world is that “sad”? You’re basically saying that LIVING isn’t worth it, only the afterlife is. You’re living to die and that’s extremely sad. These things do not end when you die. I’ll give an example.

My grandfather passed away earlier this year. Since he is gone, does that mean we all disappear with him? Since he is gone does that mean we all forget him? Of course not. His community loves him, his family loves him - still. He is not gone. All the good he did in his life still lives. I am not upset that he’s not sitting on a white cloud hanging with god for all eternity. His life gave me my life, and his legacy continues through me (and the rest of the grandkids).

“Well while you waste your life making these meager contributions, the society that you live in is nothing but a meaningless organization of mammals, who were created by chance with some scientific explanation that i dont care to understand. ”

If you have no care to understand, why post? If you have no care to understand, then I feel great pity for you. While you’re ranting about what people waste their lives on, you’re doing the exact same thing. While you’re WASTING your life focusing on what comes afterward, you’re missing out on the only life you actually get.

“because if you have no belief in a higher power, your belief in your precious moral values is false.”

Please explain how insulting us is going to make us “really think” about anything of the BS you typed?

I notice that you failed to explain how injecting a god (which no one can prove exists) makes things more meaningful. Which is why I assume you mean that getting that eternal beach party in heaven is the only benefit to believing. That is cold comfort; it is worthless.

I’d rather LIVE and ENJOY this life, not at all caring what comes next. You’re looking in the wrong direction. That’s sad. If god, and your visions of a selfishly glorious afterlife is all that’s keeping you back, I question your morality. It is a frighteningly self-serving fantasy you’re peddaling.

2006 August 28

Ryan J permalink

Okay first of all let me apoligize for making this sound like i was directing this at you personally. Im really just expressing how i feel about my own life. I should not have used others as an example. Im sorry for getting you so steamed, and i mean it. I have nothing but respect for people, including atheists. Please try to understand though I see something that you dont see, or understand. I dont know if its true or not, dont get me wrong. Whether it is a lie or truth, i see it with such clarity that i cannot ignore it, and it makes life seem meaningless to me. Being 16, and still learning, i can easily make mistakes and get heated up on my own feelings about the world. If you felt like I do, would you be able to hold it in? Maybe, but not easily.

There is nothing self-serving about wanting to know there is more to this world that an impossible series of coinsidences. People dont just pray for themselves. They pray for others. Also, The scientific explanation for our existence is the thing i dont care to understand. I sincerely want to hear what other people see in this world, because even though i am a christian, like you said im living to die and its incredibly sad. That is not the christian life that i like to thing god wants me to live. Although i will not pretend to know if there is a god or not, i cannot see any other hope.

About failing to explain why a higher power would give meaning to anything, im learning that there are just people who see comepletely different views. Its clearly obvious to those like me, but fucking bullshit to you guys. I can’t explain it much better than i’ve already attempted. Im happy that you are happy with how your lives are. What ive been going through the last 3 years is hell. Many people do live for their occupation, and i do not know how i can survive even putting up with one. When everything seems totally bullshit, it is hard to work hard for little slips of paper that i can buy things with, or even just to survive with.

Please try to understand that without meaning, which I personally can only see through God, nothing matters to me. For me there is no such thing as evil or good in this world. The way you see it, man created god, but the way i see it is if man created god, than they must have created morals, because where else would the morals come from. If morals dont have higher meaning than what men expect of each other… well you know what i mean. Once again, i dont see the meaning, and apparently i cannot survive this world without meaning.

Well, Your probably about fed up with my shit by now so i will shut up and leave it at this: It comes down to a difference in perspective. I am hugely skeptic about religion, because it fails in so many places to seem morally correct, but i have to hold on. To keep myself from eventually ending my own life i have to hold on. You do not have the need that i feel.

Once again im sorry, i only said the things i did because this can be a little hard to handle.

2006 August 28

Ryan J permalink

Oops, i forgot to mention a lot of the things i said are hypothetical: “if there is no god then…”

2006 August 28

thudfactor permalink

Ryan, I think the reason some folks get a bit heated about the “meaning comes only from God” line is that it is often expressed _not_ as personal belief but as a means of denigrating or, in the current political atmosphere, silencing those with different viewpoints. It’s a short step from what you’ve said to “those who do not believe in God have no values,” and from there to “those who do not believe in God are evil.”

I don’t think you are trying to say that, but sometimes when you hear the same argument over and over again it’s easy to just assume that’s what someone means when they say something that sounds like it.

Religion is certainly a way to find meaning, and Christianity seems to work for many people. If it is useful to you, then you should hold onto it. Not everyone is suited to understanding the world the same way. The trick is not to judge others too harshly for having a different perspective than you.

You seem to understand that, so I don’t have any worries.

2006 August 29

Renali permalink

“Okay first of all let me apoligize for making this sound like i was directing this at you personally.”

Thank you, but there is no reason to apologize. I didn’t think you were talking to me personally. I apologize if my response came off as heated - I usually forget that with written words, the subleites of speach are lacking. I was actually more surprised by what I was reading, then angered. From what I read it doesn’t seem like you’ve examined life without god very much or that you know many (if any) atheists/non-belivers.

“There is nothing self-serving about wanting to know there is more to this world that an impossible series of coinsidences.”

First, there isn’t much that is coincidental. But, you’re right; that’s not self-serving. The idea of reward for being the right kind of theist is self-serving. The idea of only doing or being good in this life to get that eternal beachparty is self-serving.

“People dont just pray for themselves. They pray for others.”

And, studies have shown it does nothing or those other people. http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/07/14/hscout526845.html Prayer is ONLY self-serving. Prayer makes you feel like you’ve contributed, but no matter what you’re praying about you haven’t actually done a thing - except make yourself feel better.

“Also, The scientific explanation for our existence is the thing i dont care to understand.”

Then you have no basis for saying that anything is coincidence, accidents or random. It is not mandatory to study these things, but if you don’t understand them it’s avisable to not tell people that do what they entail.

“I sincerely want to hear what other people see in this world, because even though i am a christian, like you said im living to die and its incredibly sad. That is not the christian life that i like to thing god wants me to live. Although i will not pretend to know if there is a god or not, i cannot see any other hope.”

Explain how god = hope. I really don’t understand why whether or not god exists makes any difference at all. I guess what I’m trying to ask is, why does what happens after this life (if anything) make any difference to this life?

“Its clearly obvious to those like me, but fucking bullshit to you guys. I canâ€™t explain it much better than iâ€™ve already attempted. Im happy that you are happy with how your lives are.”

If you are actually only 16 years old, then you have a lot of living to do. There were a million things that were crystal clear to me at 16 that I know are bullshit now. That is not to suggest that you’ll “grow out” of religion, or believing. I’m not trying to say that believers are immature. I’m just saying that life has a lot to offer and you’ll find that what you KNOW to be true now, you may not feel so sure about later.

“What ive been going through the last 3 years is hell. Many people do live for their occupation, and i do not know how i can survive even putting up with one. When everything seems totally bullshit, it is hard to work hard for little slips of paper that i can buy things with, or even just to survive with.”

I completely agree. I don’t live for my job. I like my job, but it’s not the sum and total of me. Is it possible that these three years of “hell” have contributed to the strength of your beliefs?

“Please try to understand that without meaning, which I personally can only see through God, nothing matters to me.”

I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t understand how this could be possible. If someone could prove to you beyond a doubt that god does not exist, how does that change anything for you? Does that give you liscense to drive over old people and beat up kids? Or, is it that no god = no afterlife so there’s no reward for being religious, and/or no justice for those who are bad in this life? OR, is it that - after living through - three years of “hell”, you desire the peace and serenity that the idea of heavn offers?

“For me there is no such thing as evil or good in this world.”

That confuses me. The rule of law exists independantly from religion. The laws the comprise some of the ten commandments (i.e. don’t murder, don’t steal etc) exists before the Israelites did. There is clearly right and wrong in this world.

“The way you see it, man created god, but the way i see it is if man created god, than they must have created morals, because where else would the morals come from.”

I don’t know if “create” is the right word, but we definitately do have morals that aside directly from our need to work together. When our ancestors were spearing mammoths for food, they needed to work together to be successful. Religion has a way of co-opting things that are - dare I say natural - to humans and pretending it came up with them. Morals, laws, right and wrong, marriage, family - these things existsed before religion did.

“If morals dont have higher meaning than what men expect of each otherâ€¦ well you know what i mean. Once again, i dont see the meaning, and apparently i cannot survive this world without meaning.”

I don’t think anyone can survive without meaning. But why does that meaning automatically have to be god and only god? Why can’t living a good life, helping others, and doing your share be enough?

“Well, Your probably about fed up with my shit by now so i will shut up and leave it at this: It comes down to a difference in perspective. I am hugely skeptic about religion, because it fails in so many places to seem morally correct, but i have to hold on. To keep myself from eventually ending my own life i have to hold on. You do not have the need that i feel.”

There’s nothing wrong with holding on. I did once have the need that you feel - I spent many years studying theology searching for a god I needed desperately. I didn’t find one, but survived. You may find exactly what you’re looking for, though it’s good that you are skeptical and thinking about it.

“Once again im sorry, i only said the things i did because this can be a little hard to handle.”

No need to apologize. I am not offended and I hope I haven’t offended you. Though, if you would indulge me - what is hard to handle?

~~~~~

“I donâ€™t think you are trying to say that, but sometimes when you hear the same argument over and over again itâ€™s easy to just assume thatâ€™s what someone means when they say something that sounds like it.”

I no longer think that’s what Ryan was saying either. Having spent a lot of time on atheist boards - which are frequently invaded by the “you’re all going to hell, but god loves you” type of theists, it becomes very easy to forget that type isn’t indicative of the whole.

We clearly see things differently, and I can’t pretend to understand you anymore than you understand me, but we can try. That’s a good goal, I think.

2006 August 29

Thudfactor » Not Found permalink

[...] Renali: “Okay first of all let… [...]

Pingback

2006 August 29

Ryan J permalink

According to a christian’s viewpoint:

When i say coincidental, i really mean without an answer to the question “why?” Science seems to explain how, over and over, successfully, but has no answer to why. For example lets say the Earth was formed by matter being collected in to a big ball and such. If a scientist were asked why, he would most likely simply say how that is possible with a law or collection of laws. A lot of people fail to think about, or in most cases, care about, why. Are we alive by chance, or are we here for a reason. This is how i view a godless world as just a series of coincidences, and to people like me, it seems heartless. I dont care to understand what I see as a meaningless or heartless world.

About how God=hope, he is the answer to “why?”

As far as the prayer arguement goes, i find it silly to try to prove prayer’s effectiveness wrong. God often says no, but wants us to pray for things we want regardless. Hes going to let people die, and hes going to let evil things happen. If people were not capable of being evil, then there would be no reason for reward, and etc… as im sure you’ve already heard. But, when you say prayer for others ultimately is selfserving, would you not try to help someone who might, or even probably won’t benefit from your attempt? Keep in mind as a Christian, i believe that i should pray to God because im told to, rather than to try to change God’s mind about what hes going to do, or to allow, next. He tells us it is also spiritually replenishing. I guess a lot of christians, as well as atheists don’t see it this way, but i think its true.

My thinking about deeper things than your usual 16 year old while still being stuck around them in school every day the last 3 years has contributed to the “hell” i experience just as the “hell” fueled this dark thought.

“That confuses me. The rule of law exists independantly from religion. The laws the comprise some of the ten commandments (i.e. donâ€™t murder, donâ€™t steal etc) exists before the Israelites did. There is clearly right and wrong in this world.”

“I understand what youâ€™re saying, I just donâ€™t understand how this could be possible. If someone could prove to you beyond a doubt that god does not exist, how does that change anything for you? Does that give you liscense to drive over old people and beat up kids? Or, is it that no god = no afterlife so thereâ€™s no reward for being religious, and/or no justice for those who are bad in this life? OR, is it that â€“ after living through â€“ three years of â€œhellâ€?, you desire the peace and serenity that the idea of heavn offers?”

Morals, or what we consider morals, would have been inevitable without god, but i think what gives them more meaning than what people would have each other do, is God’s confirmation of certain moral rules. Once again an answer to the question “why?” Unlike a certain teacher that was previously mentioned, I don’t believe that people would act like animals without God, for some people are not even vaguely aware of his existence even as an idea (and thats forgetting that christianity tell us we would not exist if there were no god). Also, a blind belief that morals are present without an origin, that they just exist, and man discovered them, or felt them (with what we call a conscience) is baffling to me. I think a conscience fails to prove that morals do exist, and would without God. I’ll explain. First of all, i assume most of you agree with the idea that human laws are not the same as morals, because as we know not everything legal is right, and not everything illegal is wrong. Not to mention, human law isn’t even consistent throughout the world, and a higher moral law must be. With this in mind, why is it that a conscience can sometimes make you feel guilty when you’ve done nothing you consider wrong, but that goes against what others expect of you, or a certain law? What im getting at is that if you feel bad just for not doing what others expect of you (this may not apply to you, but it does for me)
then that means the conscience quite possibly could have been created by man as well, inspired by the natural desire to be accepted (which would explain why you feel guilty). Just to help you connect more, say you made a friend angry by telling the truth about something and getting him/her in trouble. You feel guilty about it, though you know it was morally the right thing to do. I don’t know maybe im wrong and that feeling comes from a separate type of conscience or something but feeling guilty is feeling guilty. Ugh…sorry haha, I went on a rant trying to explain. Hopefully you understood what i mean. This is about the best attempt i can make at explaining how in my eyes morals would seem meaningless without conformation from God.

“Though, if you would indulge me â€“ what is hard to handle?”

As for this being hard to handle- I see my ideas as rare in society (atleast them being so important to me, and getting so deep into them), and thus i am a minority in that respect. I feel as though im surrounded by a hopelessly ignorant society (which im sure you can all atleast partly agree with on atleast one other basis) that can’t see what i see. I realize that im not some kind of genius, and i am not better than anyone else, but i feel im dragged down with knowledge, a vision, (be it true or false) that i would almost rather be ignorant to. Not being understood, and rarely having my ideas be even respected as more than inferior thoughts coming from a fucked up kid with what they assume is a fucked up history. (I realize that most of you aren’t this way, haha) This is enough to make me unstable, to say the least, and it is hard to handle these thoughts as I try to live day by day.

“We clearly see things differently, and I canâ€™t pretend to understand you anymore than you understand me, but we can try. Thatâ€™s a good goal, I think.”

Indeed. :D

2006 August 30

Renali permalink

“I dont care to understand what I see as a meaningless or heartless world.”

That’s the problem. You’ve made assumptions of what you think a godless existence is and decided you don’t like it. You don’t actually know what’s entailed. You’re under no mandate to “know”, but you can’t tell people that do know what it’s about and why it doesn’t work (even if you’re only talking about yourself) after you tell them that you aren’t interested in learning about it.

If I said, “Christianity is a silly belief system, I think. But I don’t care to understand Christians or learn about them.” Doesn’t that sound intolerant to you? Doesn’t that sound dishonest or at the very least lazy? That’s what I’m trying to get at.

“About how God=hope, he is the answer to â€œwhy?â€?

I don’t see how a being that no one can prove exists in the first place is anything more than cold comfort. That statement makes god seem like a cop-out, frankly.

“As far as the prayer arguement goes, i find it silly to try to prove prayerâ€™s effectiveness wrong.”

This is the same rationalizing I’ve seen from theists a million times. As a matter of fact they weren’t trying to prove prayer isn’t effective. They were seeking to find out IF it is effective. It’s not.

“But, when you say prayer for others ultimately is selfserving, would you not try to help someone who might, or even probably wonâ€™t benefit from your attempt?”

Yes, by actually DOING something. To illustrate what I’m trying to say, let me give a simplistic example. Someone is drowning. You have a choice - you can grab a floatation device and jump in - or at least call 911, OR you can stand on terra firma and yell out to them “I’ll pray for you.” Which is ACTUALLY going to help them?

“Keep in mind as a Christian, i believe that i should pray to God because im told to, rather than to try to change Godâ€™s mind about what hes going to do, or to allow, next. He tells us it is also spiritually replenishing. I guess a lot of christians, as well as atheists donâ€™t see it this way, but i think its true.”

From my study of theology I remember there being two types of prayer - the request kind (give me strength, save my mother, help me get those prettys hoes etc) and the reflective kind (god, you are so great, thank you for my blessings, etc). The second type I can see as spiritually replenishing. I completely agree with being thankful for what you have - you and I are just thankful to different things.

â€œI understand what youâ€™re saying, I just donâ€™t understand how this could be possible. If someone could prove to you beyond a doubt that god does not exist, how does that change anything for you? Does that give you liscense to drive over old people and beat up kids? Or, is it that no god = no afterlife so thereâ€™s no reward for being religious, and/or no justice for those who are bad in this life? OR, is it that â€“ after living through â€“ three years of â€œhellâ€?, you desire the peace and serenity that the idea of heavn offers?â€?

“Also, a blind belief that morals are present without an origin, that they just exist, and man discovered them, or felt them (with what we call a conscience) is baffling to me.”

Because you’re assuming everything needs a creator. Given that you can’t prove god exists and therefore can’t prove morals come from god, it is a “blind belief” to say that they do, or that you can’t think of how they couldn’t.

“I think a conscience fails to prove that morals do exist, and would without God.”

And religion fails to prove that morals do exists, and wouln’t without religion. Given that the religious are every bit as prone to criminal, self-desctructive and/or immoral activity, that is.

“First of all, i assume most of you agree with the idea that human laws are not the same as morals, because as we know not everything legal is right, and not everything illegal is wrong.”

I do agree. For example, the laws against euthanasia are clearly immoral, but so is not have any laws against them.

“Not to mention, human law isnâ€™t even consistent throughout the world, and a higher moral law must be.”

There is no consistency with law around the world and there is no consistency with morals around the world. And in plenty of places religious law is the law of the land. The various human rights abuses in these places clearly show a lack of ethical and moral law.

“With this in mind, why is it that a conscience can sometimes make you feel guilty when youâ€™ve done nothing you consider wrong, but that goes against what others expect of you, or a certain law?”

What were you raised to do? My parents are atheists. They raised their children to not lie, to not steal, etc etc without having to rely on religion/god. Your parents id the same thing, I assume, but added the extra compulsion to adhere by adding on heaven and hell. This is a reward and punishment system. My parents did this too, but instead of my reward or punishment coming after I die, they came immediately.

Atheists get asked a lot how they know right and wrong if they don’t know god. It seems pretty obvious to me. The golden rule holds true - treat others as you’d like to be treated. I don’t murder people because I don’t want to be murdered and I don’t want to suffer the pain of having a loved one murdered. I don’t steal because I know what’s it like to have something stolen. I don’t lie because I know the damage lies can cause. I do volunteer work because if I or anyone I loved was in need I’d want there to be help available. I donate blood because if a loved one or myself ever needed it, I would hope it would be there. I do for others what I hope they would do for me and mine if the tables were turned. This has nothing to do with god. Morals are just one more thing religion co-opted and pretended to invent.

There are no absolutes. Doing these things doesn’t protect me and mine from harm, misfortune or disater. But neither does praying or believing in god.

2006 August 30

Ryan J permalink

“Thatâ€™s the problem. Youâ€™ve made assumptions of what you think a godless existence is and decided you donâ€™t like it. You donâ€™t actually know whatâ€™s entailed. Youâ€™re under no mandate to â€œknowâ€?, but you canâ€™t tell people that do know what itâ€™s about and why it doesnâ€™t work (even if youâ€™re only talking about yourself) after you tell them that you arenâ€™t interested in learning about it.”

I want to know how other people view this world, and why a godless world can appeal to them, but i see no need for learning the mechanics of science behind it. I have no desire to prove science wrong, Im am saying that it isnt enough. No amount of information about the world will change that. To me, if there is no answer to the question of WHY, then i don’t want to know HOW. However, my belief in God means that i do want to know how. My statement that basically i don’t know and i dont want to know, is assuming that somehow i knew there was no higher power.

“I donâ€™t see how a being that no one can prove exists in the first place is anything more than cold comfort. That statement makes god seem like a cop-out, frankly.”

What? Im saying that he is the answer to why, and that is exactly the comfort that I need. Whether i can prove his existence or not is isn’t relavant. Hope needs no proof to exist. If you don’t understand, Im basing all of this on the idea of a motive behind the world, a reason that we exist. As I said, an answer to the question WHY, instead of the all too common answer to HOW. Eventually we will ALL be forgotten on Earth with time, and no matter what impact we make, it will dissapear, even if that takes until the extinction of the human race (which if you think about it isn’t very long relative to the amount of time atheists believe the universe has been around).

“This is the same rationalizing Iâ€™ve seen from theists a million times. As a matter of fact they werenâ€™t trying to prove prayer isnâ€™t effective. They were seeking to find out IF it is effective. Itâ€™s not.”

No, but YOU are. Whether the experiment was biased or not the point is prayer isn’t trying to convince God, that’s rediculous. We aren’t going to change his plan with prayer, but he has included in his plan the prayer that he know will take place, if you get what i mean. Its actually pretty complicated if you think about it. Like i said I believe we should pray for things that we want in this world, as well as for no particular reason at all, because God wants us to. He doesn’t promise we will get what we want, and you certainly can’t prove him wrong with experiments. It makes me laugh a little reading the article that you referred to earlier. Not at you, but at the idea that those people doing that expiriment actually thought they could prove prayer right or wrong. Also, let us not forget that God’s authority isnt limited to intervening with only christians, he gives life and allows death with atheists as well.

“And religion fails to prove that morals do exists, and woulnâ€™t without religion. Given that the religious are every bit as prone to criminal, self-desctructive and/or immoral activity, that is.”

Yea, because religion can’t be proven, obviously. I made it pretty clear that i know morals would exist without God, but God gives them meaning to us. Another thing while im on the topic of proving religion: Do you really think God would allow this to happen? He wants us to make the tough decision whether to believe in him or not, and he wants that decision to be hard, in order to deserve reward.

“Yes, by actually DOING something. To illustrate what Iâ€™m trying to say, let me give a simplistic example. Someone is drowning. You have a choice â€“ you can grab a floatation device and jump in â€“ or at least call 911, OR you can stand on terra firma and yell out to them â€œIâ€™ll pray for you.â€? Which is ACTUALLY going to help them?”

And that is why we pray when we have no other way to act. Putting things in God’s hands when you cannot do something yourself doesnt mean that if you see a child drowning, you say screw it and tell God to handle it.

“Because youâ€™re assuming everything needs a creator. Given that you canâ€™t prove god exists and therefore canâ€™t prove morals come from god, it is a â€œblind beliefâ€? to say that they do, or that you canâ€™t think of how they couldnâ€™t.”

Yes i can’t prove God exists, or that morals come directly from him, and they didn’t. Like you said morals were around before the commandments, but without God’s confirmation or his creation of the conscience, they would be nothing more than what the people expected of each other, and want for themselves from others. The fact that you can’t prove something you believe does not make it a blind belief. It makes it a belief. But an atheist’s view of morals (in a higher sense than what man want from each other to do) seems to have no idea behind it other than “They just exist”, that is a blind belief. Somewhat like you said, if you don’t care to question something or look into it, even something that seems so obvious to you, the phrase “They just exist” comes from ignorance. I am not assuming things need a creator. This world could exist alone, that is if there is no God. I am assuming that a creator obviously gives the answer to the all-too repetitive “why?”. And it is repetitive for a reason. It is imporant to me- my whole life. The common answer to the question “how?” to me is irrelavant to any meaning whatsoever in this world. But, I don’t mean to say we shouldn’t study it, because i believe God created it, and it is worth studying.

“There is no consistency with law around the world and there is no consistency with morals around the world. And in plenty of places religious law is the law of the land. The various human rights abuses in these places clearly show a lack of ethical and moral law.”

The fact that there is no consistency (outside of religious) morals tells me that the morals created by men aren’t all that meaningful. If something is right or wrong, it doesnt matter where in the world you live. If that moral is truly good, it would be right regardless of your location. A lack of moral and ethical law is obvious in this world, seeing how governments aren’t perfect, because they are often run by atleast somewhat immoral people. We can all make mistakes and do something unethical. The fact that the law of the land is religous doesnt make the people running it or the poeple that are supposed to be abiding by it good people, let alone perfect, and just because something is not specifically and directly forbidden in the bible does not make it right. Laws based on religion do not accurately represent it.

“What were you raised to do? My parents are atheists. They raised their children to not lie, to not steal, etc etc without having to rely on religion/god. Your parents id the same thing, I assume, but added the extra compulsion to adhere by adding on heaven and hell. This is a reward and punishment system. My parents did this too, but instead of my reward or punishment coming after I die, they came immediately.”

“Atheists get asked a lot how they know right and wrong if they donâ€™t know god. It seems pretty obvious to me. The golden rule holds true â€“ treat others as youâ€™d like to be treated. I donâ€™t murder people because I donâ€™t want to be murdered and I donâ€™t want to suffer the pain of having a loved one murdered. I donâ€™t steal because I know whatâ€™s it like to have something stolen. I donâ€™t lie because I know the damage lies can cause. I do volunteer work because if I or anyone I loved was in need Iâ€™d want there to be help available. I donate blood because if a loved one or myself ever needed it, I would hope it would be there. I do for others what I hope they would do for me and mine if the tables were turned. This has nothing to do with god. Morals are just one more thing religion co-opted and pretended to invent.”

Questioning what you have been told or raised to do can sometimes, (but by no means always) lead to enlightenment. Tradition is often far from having to do with truth. If your arguement is that you believe morals are meaningful without God because you were told to abide by them since you were young isn’t really a decent arguement. In fact it doesnt even contribute to the arguement for meaningful godless morals. Also, you said prayer was self serving but your dedication to morals seems based on what you want, and what other people would want, other than because of being right.

“There are no absolutes. Doing these things doesnâ€™t protect me and mine from harm, misfortune or disater. But neither does praying or believing in god.”

I totally agree. Christians die, christians suffer evil, and they arent immortal on this Earth regardless of their belief. That much is apparent. Christians arent promised these things, either.

2006 August 31

thudfactor permalink

Just a quick point here, Ryan, since you seem to be tied up in knots over the “prayer is self-serving” bit.

Renali criticises prayer because Renali sees it as *merely* self-serving.

There is nothing generally wrong with an act being self-serving. So when you say this:

Also, you said prayer was self serving but your dedication to morals seems based on what you want, and what other people would want, other than because of being right.

you are in some ways missing the point. Renali lists actions that are destructive to community (murdering, stealing, lying) and examples of generosity that share with the community.

These actions are right or wrong — that is, they are moral — because they demonstrably assist or hinder people living together. This is self-serving, but it is also community-serving. Renali’s beef with prayer is not that the person praying derives some benefit; it’s that the person praying appears to derive the *only* benefit and that prayer often seems to stand in for more constructive action.

2006 August 31

Thudfactor » Moral relativism permalink

[...] I don’t particularly want to write All Religion All the Time, but we’ve had long conversation here and here. A lot of interesting ideas have been touched on in the process. Like, for example, the notion that universality gives morality its true value. Let’s see if we can find the argument in the comments. [...]

Pingback

2006 August 31

Renali permalink

“I want to know how other people view this world, and why a godless world can appeal to them, but i see no need for learning the mechanics of science behind it. I have no desire to prove science wrong, Im am saying that it isnt enough. No amount of information about the world will change that. To me, if there is no answer to the question of WHY, then i donâ€™t want to know HOW. However, my belief in God means that i do want to know how. My statement that basically i donâ€™t know and i dont want to know, is assuming that somehow i knew there was no higher power.”

I’m sorry, but that is outrageous. If you aren’t willing to learn about the science, why exactly do you think you have the authority to claim “it’s not enough”? Personally, I don’t think this is about an attempt to “prove science wrong.” This sounds more like you’re afraid science will prove you wrong, so you’re steering clear of it.

I tried this before, but let me modify it to see if I can make it more clear what I’m driving at. If I stated that “Christianity doesn’t appeal to me because it’s very misogynistic, but I don’t want to learn more about it.” Doesn’t that sound to you like I’m just trying to avoid being proven wrong?

“Im saying that he is the answer to why, and that is exactly the comfort that I need. Whether i can prove his existence or not is isnâ€™t relavant. Hope needs no proof to exist. If you donâ€™t understand, Im basing all of this on the idea of a motive behind the world, a reason that we exist. As I said, an answer to the question WHY, instead of the all too common answer to HOW. Eventually we will ALL be forgotten on Earth with time, and no matter what impact we make, it will dissapear, even if that takes until the extinction of the human race (which if you think about it isnâ€™t very long relative to the amount of time atheists believe the universe has been around).”

First, atheists don’t “believe” the universe has been around a long time. That’s where the evidence points. Thus, a “belief” isn’t neccessary. Second, it’s not just atheists who accept the evidence of an old universe. Scientists are not exclusively atheists (Francis Collins is an example. Google him, if you want to see what I mean.) Third, it’s pretty clear that I’m not making myself clear, so let me try again. I understand what you’re saying: that there must be a motive behind our existence, a reason for us to exist and that reason is god. I am saying, why does it have to be god? Why is “god” the default? To put it another way - how does god give you meaning? Is it the promise of an afterlife where all accounts are settled? Is it the promise of something out there looking after you even when you feel alone? What is it about god that gives you comfort and meaning? That’s what I’m trying to understand as I don’t see how it is comforting to hang so much on something that has no substance.

“No, but YOU are. . . . . He doesnâ€™t promise we will get what we want, and you certainly canâ€™t prove him wrong with experiments.It makes me laugh a little reading the article that you referred to earlier. Not at you, but at the idea that those people doing that expiriment actually thought they could prove prayer right or wrong. .”

Of course. Mainly because it drives home my point that pray is a self-serving activity only. And, I laugh at it as well, honestly. I can’t even begin to image how they got the funding for this. However, if god: A) exists, B) has powers over life and death and over this world, then C) his effect should be able to be measured.

“Whether the experiment was biased or not the point is prayer isnâ€™t trying to convince God, thatâ€™s rediculous. We arenâ€™t going to change his plan with prayer, but he has included in his plan the prayer that he know will take place, if you get what i mean. Its actually pretty complicated if you think about it. Like i said I believe we should pray for things that we want in this world, as well as for no particular reason at all, because God wants us to. ”

I’ve studied theology (for years), I know all about the excuses as to why prayer doesn’t work. Why would this omipotent, all-powerful god need you to pray to him? Why does he need your praise or your requests if he has everything all planned out already? This makes god sound arrogant and in need of humans to pet his ego. Those are decidedly human traits you’re painting god with.

Let me also add here that these same excuses are used to defend the charlatans who claim to be psychics, or those who claim to be able to speak to the dead. People see and hear what they want to be true. People ignore all the countless times something fails, and focus instead on the coincidental times something appears to work. If a thousand prayers don’t yield the desired result, or a thousand psychics get a thousand bits of info wrong, people forget that immediately if another prayer does seem to get the desired result (i.e. a cancer goes into remission) or a psychic gets someting right (i.e. “did he have a scar from childhood?” to which the other person gasps “yes!”. Who doesn’t have a scar from a childhood accident?)

“Also, let us not forget that Godâ€™s authority isnt limited to intervening with only christians, he gives life and allows death with atheists as well.”

*sighs* I was waiting for the first insult. Let me guess, I KNOW “god” exists, I just CHOOSE to DENY him, right? :(

“Yea, because religion canâ€™t be proven, obviously. I made it pretty clear that i know morals would exist without God, but God gives them meaning to us. Another thing while im on the topic of proving religion: Do you really think God would allow this to happen? He wants us to make the tough decision whether to believe in him or not, and he wants that decision to be hard, in order to deserve reward.”

But you have yet to explain why or how the unprovable existence of god gives anything meaning. Why isn’t doing the right thing enough? Why does there need to be a reward, or a punishment? This makes religion as a whole sound very selfish and self-serving. Are you telling me that you only do the right thing because you hope god will reward you? How is that morality?

I’m not understanding one of the questions - “Do you really think God would allow this to happen?” allow what to happen?

“And that is why we pray when we have no other way to act. Putting things in Godâ€™s hands when you cannot do something yourself doesnt mean that if you see a child drowning, you say screw it and tell God to handle it.”

You’re taking the example to literally. I wasn’t suggesting that anyone would just stand by and say I’ll pray for you. It was just a way to illustrate why I say prayer does nothing. But, once again, if you have no way to help so you pray - you’re only helping yourself. You haven’t done a thing for the other person.

“Yes i canâ€™t prove God exists, or that morals come directly from him, and they didnâ€™t. Like you said morals were around before the commandments, but without Godâ€™s confirmation or his creation of the conscience, they would be nothing more than what the people expected of each other, and want for themselves from others.”

I can’t disagree more. You’re giving god credit where you should be giving humans credit. You say you agree that morals came about sans god, and then in the next sentence say they do come from god. How is that “nothing more than”? Why dismiss such a thing? Injecting god into it, and giving him undue credit cheapens morals and ignores the innate nobility in humans.

“The fact that you canâ€™t prove something you believe does not make it a blind belief. It makes it a belief. But an atheistâ€™s view of morals (in a higher sense than what man want from each other to do) seems to have no idea behind it other than â€œThey just existâ€?, that is a blind belief.”

*LOL* so wait a second - believing something you have no proof of isn’t a blind belief, but believing in something you have proof of is? Goodness. Once again, you’re assuming you know what atheists views are, when you clearly don’t know. As a matter of fact believing in something that has no evidence is the very definition of a blind belief. Beliving in something sans evidence is also the definition of faith.

“Somewhat like you said, if you donâ€™t care to question something or look into it, even something that seems so obvious to you, the phrase â€œThey just existâ€? comes from ignorance.”

Where did I say “they just exist” again? I can’t find it. I believe I’ve made it abundantly (if not over-simplified) clear how and why morals (for the sake of an example) came about.

“I am assuming that a creator obviously gives the answer to the all-too repetitive â€œwhy?â€?. And it is repetitive for a reason. It is imporant to me- my whole life. The common answer to the question â€œhow?â€? to me is irrelavant to any meaning whatsoever in this world.”

That makes you sound like you’re only interested in learning what reinforces your assumptions instead of trying anything that might challenge you.

“The fact that there is no consistency (outside of religious) morals tells me that the morals created by men arenâ€™t all that meaningful. If something is right or wrong, it doesnt matter where in the world you live. If that moral is truly good, it would be right regardless of your location.”

Incorrect. Laws as as much a product of their time and place as religion is. There are no absolutes. For example, the bible states that a rapist should marry his victim, and pay her father money. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22:28-29;&version=31; That is outrageously immoral by today’s standards, but for the Israelites this made perfect sense. As this comes straight out of the Bible you can’t claim it doesn’t represent religion accurately. The same can be said for the restrictions on women in Islamic countries. While some are extreme, their roots are clearly laid out in the Koran and Hadith. Same with religion -
if you were raised in Syria, changes are you’d be a Muslim. Were it Tibet, you’d be a Buddhist. I’ll say it a million times if I have to - there are no absolutes.

But, I digress. The point is that there are no absolutes. Stealing is immoral, but is stealing to feed starving children so? Murder is immoral and illegal, but both make allowances for self-defense. This variance does not make either meaningless. It makes them realistic and sensible.

“Questioning what you have been told or raised to do can sometimes, (but by no means always) lead to enlightenment. Tradition is often far from having to do with truth.”

I agree 100%.

“If your arguement is that you believe morals are meaningful without God because you were told to abide by them since you were young isnâ€™t really a decent arguement. In fact it doesnt even contribute to the arguement for meaningful godless morals.”

That is a gigantic strawman. That was definitely not my argument at all. My statement was responding to this: “With this in mind, why is it that a conscience can sometimes make you feel guilty when youâ€™ve done nothing you consider wrong, but that goes against what others expect of you, or a certain law?” My point was that the feelings of guilt you mentioned come from having been conditioned to feel it.

“Also, you said prayer was self serving but your dedication to morals seems based on what you want, and what other people would want, other than because of being right.”

thudfactor explained this perfectly in the post after yours. “These actions are right or wrongâ€”that is, they are moralâ€”because they demonstrably assist or hinder people living together. This is self-serving, but it is also community-serving. Renaliâ€™s beef with prayer is not that the person praying derives some benefit; itâ€™s that the person praying appears to derive the only benefit and that prayer often seems to stand in for more constructive action.”

Prezactly. Yes, my doing these things are self-serving - in that they make me feel useful and helpful and in my hope that the person on the receiving end will feel the need to act for others in the same manner - but they are also community-serving. Whereas prayer is only self-serving.

2006 August 31

Ryan J permalink

I said that was hypothetical… We obviously equally misunderstand each other, if not you more than me. I clearly stated that I want to learn about science. If on the way there it proves God wrong and it is undeniable, then so be it. Im saying science doesn’t give me the meaning of life that God does. When the meaning is gone, the mechanics are not important to me.

“First, atheists donâ€™t â€œbelieveâ€? the universe has been around a long time. Thatâ€™s where the evidence points. Thus, a â€œbeliefâ€? isnâ€™t neccessary. Second, itâ€™s not just atheists who accept the evidence of an old universe. Scientists are not exclusively atheists (Francis Collins is an example. Google him, if you want to see what I mean.) Third, itâ€™s pretty clear that Iâ€™m not making myself clear, so let me try again. I understand what youâ€™re saying: that there must be a motive behind our existence, a reason for us to exist and that reason is god. I am saying, why does it have to be god? Why is â€œgodâ€? the default? To put it another way â€“ how does god give you meaning? Is it the promise of an afterlife where all accounts are settled? Is it the promise of something out there looking after you even when you feel alone? What is it about god that gives you comfort and meaning? Thatâ€™s what Iâ€™m trying to understand as I donâ€™t see how it is comforting to hang so much on something that has no substance.”

First of all as a christian I personally believe the bible is the only real source of information we have, and christians that believe the bible isn’t true cannot represent me, or christianity as a whole. God is the default because it is the only reason for a motive behind the world (that i have been introduced to, of course) and that i consider enough. You said you used to be desperately seeking a God that you could believe in. Is it possible that you just forgot the passion that you felt with this need for meaning, after being dulled down over a period of time? I obviously don’t know and please don’t take that the wrong way, but I feel it happening to me. And i know it wasn’t just the ignorance of being young when it was at its peak. Im not getting smarter and forgetting those feelings, im getting worn out. Also,God isn’t comforting me. Hes giving me what I think is a reason to live. I won’t be comforted until I learn more about how God works so I don’t have an answer to the question. For all I know I will never find comfort until the afterlife.

“Iâ€™ve studied theology (for years), I know all about the excuses as to why prayer doesnâ€™t work. Why would this omipotent, all-powerful god need you to pray to him? Why does he need your praise or your requests if he has everything all planned out already? This makes god sound arrogant and in need of humans to pet his ego. Those are decidedly human traits youâ€™re painting god with.”

I didn’t say need. He expects it of us. And so what if God is what we consider a human (with the same expectations of people) selfish. He is a God, and we cannot judge him the same way we judge his creations.

Let me also add here that these same excuses are used to defend the charlatans who claim to be psychics, or those who claim to be able to speak to the dead. People see and hear what they want to be true. People ignore all the countless times something fails, and focus instead on the coincidental times something appears to work. If a thousand prayers donâ€™t yield the desired result, or a thousand psychics get a thousand bits of info wrong, people forget that immediately if another prayer does seem to get the desired result (i.e. a cancer goes into remission) or a psychic gets someting right (i.e. â€œdid he have a scar from childhood?â€? to which the other person gasps â€œyes!â€?. Who doesnâ€™t have a scar from a childhood accident?)”

Lol, that doesn’t make it wrong.

“Where did I say â€œthey just existâ€? again? I canâ€™t find it. I believe Iâ€™ve made it abundantly (if not over-simplified) clear how and why morals (for the sake of an example) came about.”

It seemed you were implying it. Im talking about a truly higher-than-human moral law. Universal ethics that dont change depending on location. If there is no absolute moral law then ethics are just expectations of one another. It might be enough for you, but not for me. Im not saying I’d enjoy killing people if i knew there was no God, im simply (be it a radical belief) saying the impact would ultimately make no difference to me because the human race will eventually be gone anyway and in my eyes there is no meaning even while we exist. If our very essence is to be removed from existence (something that i can’t even comprehend when thinking of myself) what does it matter if we enjoy our lives or not? To me, if there is no meaning to the time we have on Earth, what makes the little time we have precious? I know you all don’t see it that way, and probably don’t fully understand it. Everything im saying is from my point of view.

“That makes you sound like youâ€™re only interested in learning what reinforces your assumptions instead of trying anything that might challenge you.”

That tells me you don’t understand. Why gives meaning to me, how doesn’t, thats all I’m saying. I said before that I really do what to learn science. Its just that i wouldn’t if i somehow KNEW that God doesn’t exist. Thats not the case.

“Incorrect. Laws as as much a product of their time and place as religion is. There are no absolutes. For example, the bible states that a rapist should marry his victim, and pay her father money. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22:28-29;&version=31; That is outrageously immoral by todayâ€™s standards, but for the Israelites this made perfect sense. As this comes straight out of the Bible you canâ€™t claim it doesnâ€™t represent religion accurately. The same can be said for the restrictions on women in Islamic countries. While some are extreme, their roots are clearly laid out in the Koran and Hadith. Same with religion â€“
if you were raised in Syria, changes are youâ€™d be a Muslim. Were it Tibet, youâ€™d be a Buddhist. Iâ€™ll say it a million times if I have to â€“ there are no absolutes.”

That verse in the bible disturbs me, I’ll have to look into that. Anyway, If there are no absolutes, are your saying right and wrong are opinions? Thats exactly what it means to me. Believing in God, i believe there are absolutes. They are intertwined. Are you saying that the statement “God isn’t real” is a fact?

“But, I digress. The point is that there are no absolutes. Stealing is immoral, but is stealing to feed starving children so? Murder is immoral and illegal, but both make allowances for self-defense. This variance does not make either meaningless. It makes them realistic and sensible.”

Stealing remains immoral, even with good motives. You are still wronging someone else, even slightly, to do it. The act of giving the food to feed children is seperate. I don’t now if murdering to save your own life is against God’s expectations or not. As far as i know it isn’t clear in the bible. My guess would be that the person whos trying to kill you’s life isn’t worth any less than yours, and you have no right to end it, just as it is wrong for him to end yours. Im not sure how to answer however the question of war. God obviously condones it but it doesnt seem right to me, along with many other things. Anyway, I’m using “if morals are dependant on location”, not that.

“sighs I was waiting for the first insult. Let me guess, I KNOW â€œgodâ€? exists, I just CHOOSE to DENY him, right? :(”

No man, wow. Must I precede every idea with “according to my belief”? Im saying that according to my belief, the expiriment on prayer fails to recognize God’s power over life and death with non-believers as well, and just because they aren’t being prayed for doesn’t mean God wasn’t active. Praying doesn’t increase chances of survival. Like you said, it doesn’t prevent death as well as other inevitable things.

“LOL so wait a second â€“ believing something you have no proof of isnâ€™t a blind belief, but believing in something you have proof of is? Goodness. Once again, youâ€™re assuming you know what atheists views are, when you clearly donâ€™t know. As a matter of fact believing in something that has no evidence is the very definition of a blind belief. Beliving in something sans evidence is also the definition of faith.”

…Just because we don’t rely entirely on scientific proof alone doesnt mean we have no reason for believing. God has done things in peoples lives to strenthen faith in everyone that is even just told about it. We don’t consider our beliefs blind either.

As far as morals are concerned, I now realize that you don’t believe in an absolute right or wrong but there are people out there that consider it some kind of higher power that just exists with no explanation. I misread your arguement, but that was what i was getting at.

“I canâ€™t disagree more. Youâ€™re giving god credit where you should be giving humans credit. You say you agree that morals came about sans god, and then in the next sentence say they do come from god. How is that â€œnothing more thanâ€?? Why dismiss such a thing? Injecting god into it, and giving him undue credit cheapens morals and ignores the innate nobility in humans.”

I didn’t say they came from god. Im saying the meaning came from him… Im dismissing such a thing because i see no meaning behind it. It comes down to in morals is it enough for them to come from man. Are expectations of one another meaningful enough for you to consider them right?” Its a question of opinion, and we differ in that regard.

“thudfactor explained this perfectly in the post after yours. â€œThese actions are right or wrongâ€”that is, they are moralâ€”because they demonstrably assist or hinder people living together. This is self-serving, but it is also community-serving. Renaliâ€™s beef with prayer is not that the person praying derives some benefit; itâ€™s that the person praying appears to derive the only benefit and that prayer often seems to stand in for more constructive action.â€?”

Can you base such accusations on appearence? As the saying goes, God works in mysterious ways. You haven’t proven prayer’s result with your arguement, and so you can’t tell me that it doesnt do anything for anyone else (that is a belief), and thus can’t state it is self-serving.

Iâ€™m not understanding one of the questions â€“ â€œDo you really think God would allow this to happen?â€? allow what to happen?

Allow his presence to be proven. I explained why in my last post.

Are fallable humans the ultimate authority and highest power in existence (on earth), or are they creations with a purpose?

2006 August 31

thudfactor permalink

Ryan J:

First of all as a christian I personally believe the bible is the only real source of information we have, and christians that believe the bible isnâ€™t true cannot represent me, or christianity as a whole.

That’s an unfortunate position to take.

What that says to me is you are not genuinely interested in the beliefs and knowledge others have. Your mind is closed to reality, to observation, to science, and to rational discussion, and I suspect your primary purpose in this discussion is evangelism.

2006 September 1

Ryan J permalink

Well then you don’t understand it, and I might have not chosen the right words.

I’d like to have an intelligent friendly arguement with someone that isn’t only looking forward to getting laid every weekend. I’d like to do that without being accused of being like every other christian. I want to talke to someone that doesn’t throw my ideas aside based on a generalization of people my age (among others) I want feedback and arguements from the other side of the story. I KNOW you won’t convert over the internet because of my arguements. What i mean to do is get my thoughts out of the isolation of my mind and hear what other people have to say. It helps to understand myself as well as question my beliefs (which hopefully, but not positively, will strengthen my faith or guide me to one that better suites me). Im open to all those things I just don’t see enough meaning within them. And I won’t just as you won’t stop seeing it. Just because im not changing my mind when I hear an arguement doesn’t mean im closed-minded. I just believe strongly that there is something out there more important than the obvious, apparent reality. When i said the bible is the only source of info we have i meant it is the only source from God and that christians who almost DECIDE what they will obey don’t represent me. I didn’t mean no other information is correct lol, or has importance.

I guess i will stop posting here, for it seems things aren’t much different than at school. Even most intelligent people including me don’t seem to make the effort to truely understand, we just look for something that we disagree with and focus on that.

Have great lives, guys.

Move aside, and let the man go through.

We’re not all atheists

Get Free Updates

Search

Recent Comments

Twitter

Archives

About Thudfactor