a question for atheists

[pencilart3]

Hey so I just have a quick question I've been thinking a lot about recently. Before you read it, this is not an attack and I am not "shoving anything down your throat". I saw there was one on gay rights (which I personally do not agree with) so I just didn't read it and I'm not offended at all. So if you don't want to talk about it, that's fine. You can just click back on your browser and forget about it.

But anyway, I was just wondering why anyone would be an atheist. I'm making the assumption that you do not believe in any god whatsoever. Why would you believe that? Consider this: suppose we both die. Me a Christian, you an Atheist. If there isn't a God after all, we will be in the same boat. I will be in no worse a situation than you because there is no God to be offended at my following Jesus.

But if there is a God, would this not be a terrible situation for you? Can you even imagine the feeling of dying and standing before some god who you didn't even think was real 5 minute ago? Does it hurt anything to just pick a god, even if at random, and follow that so that if he is real, you will at least have a chance at an after life? It just doesn't make any sense, to me of course, why you would choose to follow no god at all. So, if you are an atheist, please tell me why, I'm very interested!

[dogperson]

As a Christian, I don't even understand your post and I'm sure that atheists will find it equally incredulous

Are you really asking people to believe in something they do not believe... in case they have been wrong?  Do you really want people who do not believe, to state they do?  ... a violation of any type of personal ethical principle.  I know enough about atheism to know this belief is a personal  core one for them, and a principle.


If you accept the tenants of any form of Bible, God  would know this was a false belief and a 'hedge bet'.
I suggest you find an appropriate religious clergy, express this as an option for non-believers, and see how appalled they are. 

[pencilart3]

I am simply asking them what the advantage is to believing in no God, as well as the reason I am asking that question. I am sorry if there was any confusion. I am not asking anyone to believe anything. I am curious.

[themeandvariation]

@dogperson..  "Do you really want people who do not believe, to state they do?".. Yes, Dante has a special place for such people..  
Oh, the fear of 'being without' … (god, that is..) .. Dogperson, you must not be surprised - given the politics of hell and brimstone is still employed as a (effective) tactic.. (Also given the Johaninne  perspective (John's gospel) which sort of 'validates' the use of such rhetoric)..

Though, i am reminded of a poem..

I sought my God,
my God i could not see.
I sought my soul
 and my soul eluded me.
I sought my brother
And  found all three.

(Please forgive the gender bias of the poem.. I didn't want to alter it, .. same as I wouldn't  want to change any of the lyrics that Billy Holiday sung… )

I am not a believer in any traditional sense of that definition…. And, also, I am not an agnostic, or an atheist…
(i have a funny feeling this thread might catch some wind…  

[dogperson]

I am simply asking them what the advantage is to believing in no God, as well as the reason I am asking that question. I am sorry if there was any confusion. I am not asking anyone to believe anything. I am curious.

I am not confused.. your question has two implications:
_ That the God I believe in would not know the difference in pretenders.  If you believe in an omniscient God, how can you even ask why someone else has not considered faking a belief?
- You have ignored that an individual's decision about what to believe or not believe is a core ethical principle that can be not be changed just because another choice might have a better outcome.  Familiarize yourself with situational ethics.  No one should be looking for an 'advantage'in core belief choices.  

If you don't get how appalling this is, go see a minister.

[dcstudio]

methinks there be a troll in this thread.

[themeandvariation]

@dc
something i said? (noticing that 3 persons have commented, i am deducing you mean me )

[dcstudio]

@ theme--   nope not you..  think it's an all around ridiculous thread and I don't know why I commented...  think I am going to have to lay off posting for a while...lol.   time better spent at my piano.


I enjoyed the "hedge bet" analogy by pencilart...   but then I am a craps dealer, in addition to being a pianist...   

yep--just like those guys who cast lots for His robe...    that's what the church told me anyway...lol.

[dogperson]

@ theme--   nope not you..  think it's an all around ridiculous thread and I don't know why I commented...  think I am going to have to lay off posting for a while...lol.   time better spent at my piano.


I enjoyed the "hedge bet" analogy by pencilart...   but then I am a craps dealer, in addition to being a pianist...   

yep--just like those guys who cast lots for His robe...    that's what the church told me anyway...lol.

Think I probably used the hedge bet because I love to play craps    I'm done with this stupid dialogue with PencilArt.. going back to tangos and Mozart. Someone else can take up the gauntlet.

[pencilart3]

Sorry everyone I think it was my fault I was not explaining this correctly. I got up at 4:15 this morning...

What I was saying is this: it is non advantageous to believe in no god because you cannot win. Either we're all in the same boat, or the one who chose the god is correct. Sorry for the confusion. I'm just wondering if anyone was wondering the same thing, and if anyone who was an atheist could just explain why they choose no god given this information. Again I'm sorry for the confusion!

[dcstudio]

Think I probably used the hedge bet because I love to play craps   .

only game in the casino where they pay ya true odds!      takes a little savvy to play, too..  and even more to deal it..  hectic game.     not for slot players...

only folks who play craps know what a hedge bet is 

[pencilart3]

Care to explain? 

[outin]

If it's a sincere question, I don't mind trying to answer.

These days I prefer to call myself non-religious instead of an atheist. Simply because the term atheist implies that one needs to somehow consciously decide not to believe in God. For me it's simply the most natural thing in the world. Religions make no sense to me in their premise of believing in gods (although I can see their implications on society and history, both positive and negative). Why WOULD I believe in God?

Would it make me happier to think there's life after death and I had to bargain with someone to make it better? Or to think there's someone holding the strings in our lifes and taking care of us? That I cannot know, but I accept the way things are, you live and then you die and afterwards there's nothing. I wish I could live longer, but in the great scheme of things it would not make sense. I also don't think too much about "living one's only life to the most" since this will create just as much pressure as living it to qualify for a great afterlife.

I am here now but the universe keeps going even when I am gone. To me it's a reassuring thought. My decisions will have their impact on things, but nothing too profound

[outin]

Double post...

But I might as well add:
I think people either grow into religions so well that they have little need to question the idea or they look into them for piece of mind. If you can find that in other ways, religions kind of become unimportant.

[dcstudio]

Care to explain?  

the game of craps involves betting on what numbers you think will roll..  on the "come out" roll 7 or 11 wins--2-3-and 12 lose... any other number becomes "the point" and the point must roll again before a 7 for the pass line bet to win.    Some gamblers will play the pass line and bet with the shooter--but just in case---they will bet another bet to cover the original in case it loses.   For instance they may make a "come" bet---if a seven rolls next---their pass line bet loses--but they are winners on the "come" bet which offsets the loss...

this practice is known as "hedge betting"

the analogy being that atheists are betting the "don't" pass or against the shooter--(there is no God)--and by "just in case" believing in a God--they are in fact "hedging" their bet with a maybe there is a God belief or a heaven will "come" bet--offsetting the  possibility of an  eternity in hell--and getting to go to heaven by sort of believing...lol a "celestial hedge bet"  if you will.


it was actually a brilliant analogy...

[chopinlover01]

Hey so I just have a quick question I've been thinking a lot about recently. Before you read it, this is not an attack and I am not "shoving anything down your throat". I saw there was one on gay rights (which I personally do not agree with) so I just didn't read it and I'm not offended at all. So if you don't want to talk about it, that's fine. You can just click back on your browser and forget about it.

But anyway, I was just wondering why anyone would be an atheist. I'm making the assumption that you do not believe in any god whatsoever. Why would you believe that? Consider this: suppose we both die. Me a Christian, you an Atheist. If there isn't a God after all, we will be in the same boat. I will be in no worse a situation than you because there is no God to be offended at my following Jesus.

But if there is a God, would this not be a terrible situation for you? Can you even imagine the feeling of dying and standing before some god who you didn't even think was real 5 minute ago? Does it hurt anything to just pick a god, even if at random, and follow that so that if he is real, you will at least have a chance at an after life? It just doesn't make any sense, to me of course, why you would choose to follow no god at all. So, if you are an atheist, please tell me why, I'm very interested!

I'd personally hope that if there is a god, he'd favor those who actually thought about the question than those who blindly followed him just in case.
That said, don't act like just because you believe you're so much more protected- say it's Allah (of Islam) that's the real God, you'd be just as screwed as I am in that case.
You're atheistic towards 99% of every god to ever exist; I'm just one god more atheistic than you are
There's a nearly infinite number of gods you could believe in- but my guess is that you're raised into Christianity, no?
The arrogance of people saying their religion is right is quite stupendous- they just so happened to be born into the right religion and worship the right god out of all the 4,200 some religions out there that have already existed, to say nothing of future ones, and they say all the others are wrong when the others have just as much evidence.
Sorry if this comes off pissy. I sincerely don't mind this question, especially from someone who appears to try to be getting an objective view, so don't take it personally.

[outin]

I usually try to avoid discussing religion for obvious reasons, but now that I'm at it...

I was exposed to religion as a small child by my very religious grandmother who lived with us, as well as by my mother's relatives when I spent summers at their farm. I listened to my grandmothers stories from the bible and found them entertaining. I even tried praying but soon found out that it doesn't actually work. You don't get what you ask for… I understand now that the idea of praying is to help you better accept the things you encounter and what you cannot have. But I don't think I ever had much trouble accepting the inevitable anyway…which doesn't mean I won't struggle to change the uninevitable… I think my substitute for praying is my inner dialog, where I argue with myself about whether I should try to do something or just let it be  

In a way I cannot even say that I don't believe in Gods... Because while they may not exist in the sense that material things do, they do indeed exist. They exists very much in the minds of religious people. They are just as real to them as they are unreal to me. So it comes down to the question: Does my inner world exist? Is it more real than someone else's? And then we are back to philosophical nonsense. Better just go on with my life  

[outin]

I'd personally hope that if there is a god, he'd favor those who actually thought about the question than those who blindly followed him just in case.

Interestingly "believing just in case" is most common where I come from. Traditionally Finns belong to church but never go there except for weddings, funerals and christenings. If you ask them whether they believe in God most say that they do believe in "some kind of a God" but cannot really specify. It's something completely abstract  and they don't even want to contemplate it further, just feel it's better to think that way instead of denying all higher power. At the same time most of these people think "really" religious people who concretely believe in God and pray on him are a bit nuts. They seem to think the same way of someone who publicly announces himself as an atheist. In general belief has become something of a very private matter not to be publicly discussed by rational people. It's ok to be a priest by profession though and perform scaraments, because it's just that, a profession.

[perfect_pitch]

it is non advantageous to believe in no god because you cannot win.

Nope... I completely disagree. There is no advantage in believing in God.

Say you do believe in God - you believe that if he has diving power and is infallible, then every single sad, tragic event is technically the will of God. If someone you love has a heart attack, then you justify that God must have wanted it to happen, and that it was God's will. Unfortunately, I find it quite sickening to think that (if there is a) God then he chose to rob us time with the departed loved one and that we must just accept his choices and doings??? I think that's despicable.

I find it far easier to accept that if say, someone died of cancer, then biologically there was a reason that that person may have died from the disease because they had a high risk factor, or maybe they smoked and there are other (semi) justifiable reasons, but explanatory reasons why this happened. Assuming that a omnipotent creator chose to end someones life is just horrific, in my opinion.

and if anyone who was an atheist could just explain why they choose no god given this information.

I assume that I don't need religion to lead a fulfilling life. I don't lead my life according to the bible - I lead my life making decisions with respect to human beings we share this planet with. I don't kill because it's wrong, I don't steal because it's wrong. I don't need a book to tell me that, and if there are people who do - then there's something wrong with them. If I do die and there is a god, then I know that I still lived my life morally right, without doing harm to others.

I'll take it one step further since you opened this can of worms (and yes, it IS a can of worms). I avoid religion like the plague because people use it for the most STUPID or reasons. Someone made a touchdown in American football - praise the lord. Some serial rapist finds God after molesting children - praise the lord. If people use God as an instant "I'm sorry for what I've done in the past" to a God who apparently forgives all past indiscretion's - then what use is there really for hell, or for being Good in the first place???

As I said... If I die knowing that I didn't seriously hurt or injure another human being on the planet, then I'll die a happy man. If God (assuming he IS real) does exist, then that should count for something... not whether I went to Church for an hour every Sunday for my entire life...

...and by the way - If people were TRULY religious, then they wouldn't rely on Modern Medicine and Science to cure them of their diseases - they'd just pray to God.

...although, had religious people been doing that - they'd have all died out by now. Sorry, but you know it's the truth. I'd put my life in the hands or a surgeon/doctor/nurse an infinite amount of times before I put it in the hands of the Lord.



Good enough response for you?

[dcstudio]

Nope... I completely disagree. There is no advantage in believing in God.

Say you do believe in God - you believe that if he has diving power and is infallible, then every single sad, tragic event is technically the will of God. If someone you love has a heart attack, then you justify that God must have wanted it to happen, and that it was God's will. Unfortunately, I find it quite sickening to think that (if there is a) God then he chose to rob us time with the departed loved one and that we must just accept his choices and doings??? I think that's despicable.

I find it far easier to accept that if say, someone died of cancer, then biologically there was a reason that that person may have died from the disease because they had a high risk factor, or maybe they smoked and there are other (semi) justifiable reasons, but explanatory reasons why this happened. Assuming that a omnipotent creator chose to end someones life is just horrific, in my opinion.

I assume that I don't need religion to lead a fulfilling life. I don't lead my life according to the bible - I lead my life making decisions with respect to human beings we share this planet with. I don't kill because it's wrong, I don't steal because it's wrong. I don't need a book to tell me that, and if there are people who do - then there's something wrong with them. If I do die and there is a god, then I know that I still lived my life morally right, without doing harm to others.

I'll take it one step further since you opened this can of worms (and yes, it IS a can of worms). I avoid religion like the plague because people use it for the most STUPID or reasons. Someone made a touchdown in American football - praise the lord. Some serial rapist finds God after molesting children - praise the lord. If people use God as an instant "I'm sorry for what I've done in the past" to a God who apparently forgives all past indiscretion's - then what use is there really for hell, or for being Good in the first place???

As I said... If I die knowing that I didn't seriously hurt or injure another human being on the planet, then I'll die a happy man. If God (assuming he IS real) does exist, then that should count for something... not whether I went to Church for an hour every Sunday for my entire life...

...and by the way - If people were TRULY religious, then they wouldn't rely on Modern Medicine and Science to cure them of their diseases - they'd just pray to God.

...although, had religious people been doing that - they'd have all died out by now. Sorry, but you know it's the truth. I'd put my life in the hands or a surgeon/doctor/nurse an infinite amount of times before I put it in the hands of the Lord.



Good enough response for you?

was your dad a preacher?--you sound like a friend of mine...his daddy was a southern babtist-- "hellfire brimstone and damnation"  revival guy.  I thought I had it rough when I was young---not even close to what that guy went through.

you're not from the deep south are you?? lol.   they set up outside of walmart down here--yell at you that you are going to hell---when all you want to do is buy some charcoal.

[josh93248]

Well Noah, I am effectively an atheist, I think your question was answered reasonably well by some of the other commentators. If you want to take this debate a little further I'd be happy to but If this is going to be an amicable Atheism vs Theism debate for the purposes of you (hopefully others as well ) learning something, it has to go beyond Pascal's Wager, An easily and already pretty clearly debunked claim.

So here are some questions to get the ball really rolling.

1. Have you ever contemplated the nature of a world without god and with permanent death? If this were the reality and you knew it for a fact how would you change?

2. Have you ever considered the evidence that god, if he exists, is a tyrant?

3. Have you ever considered that in a world without god people who understand that fact would have a better grasp on reality and would have a better chance of finding meaning in their lives and solving the problems of the real world?

I would be curious to hear others respond to these questions too.

[themeandvariation]

@ josh   "Have you ever considered the evidence that god, if he exists, is a tyrant?"

Where is this evidence of a tyrant?  Do you mean how 'He' is described on the old testament? And if so, Why would that be evidence?
What about the evidence of the sound of a waterfall, or why a rose perfect in form should have such a scent? The dance of sunlight on water…
I love this quote,  (turns the question on its head   … is an equal opportunity offender ) apropos  for musicians asking the god question:
"Without Bach, Theology would be devoid of an object, Creation would be fictive, and Nothingness peremptory. If there is anyone who owes everything to Bach, it is certainly God." [Emil Cioran]

(One could say the same about the late Beethoven quartets..)

[josh93248]

Thankyou for taking me up on one of my questions themeandvariation

It's more of a thought experiment more than anything else it's entirely possible that if a god exists he, or it if you prefer, is a lovely being or that it has good reasons for doing or not doing whatever it does.

But let us suppose the Christian god really does exist, as presented in the bible.

Here is a being that wiped out all humans and animals because he was dissatisfied with them.

Here is a being that relied on war and destruction to spread his religion.

Here is a being that demanded a murder, a sacrifice to be performed by the very father, then after traumatising all involved only stops the slaughter at the last second. Furthermore if this was God's intention from the beginning he is clearly capable and willing to lie to humans. How can we trust him?

Here is a being that treats people grossly unfairly, showering some with luck and others with misfortune but that still expects to be loved unconditionally by all.

Here is a being that undermines human  freedom and choice by controlling so many aspects of the world we live in yet tells us loving it, the only right choice we can make, is still a choice despite the coercion implicit in hell.

Why doesn't god destroy hell and the devil if he is truly all powerful or does he believe that eternal punishment and the devil's role in events is somehow justified?

god allows no privacy.

We live in a world where we have learned that so much benefit can be derived from looking at the world logicially and scientifically yet we are asked to ignore this mode of thinking and believe in him on faith. Why make a world we could understand in no other way, which he would not explain properly, and then have us abandon this great way of thinking in favour of blind faith.

Why allow so many horrific acts to be done in the name of god?

Why not give us a better world, without the pressures of survival, the horrors of death and premature death of Chopin and Mozart?

Anyway, my main aim is to have an interesting discussion. I'm curious to hear your response.

[themeandvariation]

Just my Opinion: These definitions from the OT (Old Testament) are really an expression of Human anger.. (however repressed, or rather  'Projected' …

But if you were god, wouldn't you want each and every living being to have….. um …. 'free will'?

(Theme takes another sip of coffee… )

Do you know this ee cummings poem… ?

plant Magic dust
by e.e. cummings
 
    
plant Magic dust

expect hope doubt
(wonder mistrust)
despair

and right
where soulless our
(with all their minds)
eyes blindly stare

life herSelf stands
 
    

[josh93248]

Perhaps I would, perhaps I wouldn't. Also, free will is not necessarily an easy thing to define or prove but going down that path would lead to some very off-topic philosophical debate. I want to stay at least a little on topic.

So on this free will thing, isn't it possible that to god, the universe is a work of art that he doesn't want disrupted by free will. That he wants it to unfold in an exact way like a movie or a musical piece. Just an idea.

So, what's your take on my other two original questions Theme?

[themeandvariation]

"the universe is a work of art that he doesn't want disrupted by free will."..  I believe that where beauty and love come together…it is a clue …

First 2 questions:
 1.  reply:
  no it wouldn't change me… (let love and beauty rule… cast the rest to the wind… )
2. reply:
  As i stated earlier, This is the definition coming from the Old Testament…

The mockingbird's song confounds one's reason…

[perfect_pitch]

was your dad a preacher?
you're not from the deep south are you??

No... and GOD NO!!!   (Had to throw it in there in jest)   

Where is this evidence of a tyrant?

You mean apart from the world being ravaged by cancer and other diseases, the hundreds of millions of young children brought into a world full of starvation, multiple disabilities... and not doing a f@#$ing thing about it??? For a god who apparently has infinite power - he could make the world an incredibly brilliant place to live without any suffering... with a click of his bloody fingers.

What about the evidence of the sound of a waterfall, or why a rose perfect in form should have such a scent? The dance of sunlight on water…

I'm pretty sure that PHYSICS answers most of those questions, and BIOLOGY, the others.

I'm sorry, but I think I've made a new friend in Josh93248... although I'm curious to know why the number is so...

[josh93248]

I'm not familiar with that poem but it is a curious little piece.

I appreciate love and beauty but would not cast everything else to the wind. What about meaning? What about altruism? What about knowledge? I believe in the pursuit of those things.

The bit you chopped off in your quote of me was "What if". That bit is crucial. These are all thought experiments to me designed to be more interesting than really serious arguments.

I choose to base the god of this discussion on the Christian one from the bible. That is what is talked about in the original post and that is what is relevant to this discussion. I don't actually believe he/it exists remember. As for other hypothetical gods or views on mysticism, spirituality or philosophy, I'd rather talk about those in another debate.

Now perfect_pitch, thankyou for saying you think you may have found a friend in me, even if you are joking, your posts were good too. Perhaps we will be friends. I think Theme is being a bit poetic and philosophical in his posts which is okay but I'd rather have more of a debate.

Oh and the number? That's becuase there are a lot of Josh's out there and I picked because there are 9 Beethoven Symphonies, 32 Beethoven Sonatas and 48 Bach Preludes and fugues.

[timothy42b]

Just my Opinion: These definitions from the OT (Old Testament) are really an expression of Human anger.. (however repressed, or rather  'Projected' …

In my opinion, the undeniably brutal image of Yahweh in the OT is a reflection of the culture at the time, and not definitive of the nature of God.

However, most of the more fervent Christians would disagree with my reading of scriptures, because clearly I'm allowing for error and human input, and they believe the text was written by God himself, presumably in 16th century English (KJV).

But if you were god, wouldn't you want each and every living being to have….. um …. 'free will'?

Free will is not biblical.  The addition of it to Christian theology is a construct, in response to a perception that God is unjust unless we somehow make evil the fault of humans.

[themeandvariation]

@ P_P  "I'm pretty sure that PHYSICS answers most of those questions, and BIOLOGY, the others. "
    Really??
Can science explain the love you feel for music?

Yes… There is terrible suffering in the world….  To this, (was it in Mathew?) : "whatever you have done to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me"

a man who had fallen among thieves
by e. e. cummings

a man who had fallen among thieves
lay by the roadside on his back
dressed in fifteenthrate ideas
wearing a round jeer for a hat

fate per a somewhat more than less
emancipated evening
had in return for consciousness
endowed him with a changeless grin

whereon a dozen staunch and leal
citizens did graze at pause
then fired by hypercivic zeal
sought newer pastures or because

swaddled with a frozen brook
of pinkest vomit out of eyes
which noticed nobody he looked
as if he did not care to rise

one hand did nothing on the vest
its wideflung friend clenched weakly dirt
while the mute trouserfly
confessed a button solemnly inert.

Brushing from whom the stiffened puke
i put him all into my arms
and staggered banged with terror through
a million billion trillion stars.

[josh93248]

Theme... please start poetry thread, it'll be interesting, heck, I'll add something to it if you start it.

Timothy, could you please explain how free will doesn't exist (If that's what you mean by "it is not biblical") and yet we are to be punished for "sin"

Boy this thread has some life in it eh?

[themeandvariation]

@ Josh
"I choose to base the god of this discussion on the Christian one from the bible."

Why?  Have you not already deconstructed it?  What about considering what Other definitions may be possible? 

[timothy42b]

Timothy, could you please explain how free will doesn't exist (If that's what you mean by "it is not biblical") and yet we are to be punished for "sin"

I didn't mean free will didn't exist (although clearly it is not unlimited.)

What I meant was that free will, despite being a central concept in Christianity, is not described in the bible.  (much like the Trinity!)

[josh93248]

I see... but surely you agree that for even a semblance of justification, the sorting into heaven and hell must be based on free will.

Theme, I have considered the possibility of other gods but don't see much value in dwelling on it overlong.

My reason for discussing the god of the bible is that he is still important because so many people believe in him. Therefore a thorough and rigorous deconstruction, even if you think I've already accomplished it, is still worthwhile to me.

Also considering you brought up something to the effect of "Can science explain why we love music" could you take a look at another topic I started in miscellaneous? I'd like your input Theme.

[themeandvariation]

 @ Josh "considered the possibility of other gods"… do you  mean definitions offered by other religions?…  Because, that is simply relying on someone else's opinion… Have you never experienced a confounding of your reasoning at any moment?…  Music theory  cannot write a piece (convincingly to my mind) but only explain what is observed, (and is even limited in That capacity as well). …But as you know, the experience of music is far greater than some theory can tell..  (save for that quote from Mark Twain   : "“Wagner’s music is better than it sounds.” 



(ps.. I'll check out your thread    )

[timothy42b]

I see... but surely you agree that for even a semblance of justification, the sorting into heaven and hell must be based on free will.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. 

But people claim the Bible supports it, and I can't find that.

In fact, the reverse is true.  There are many examples where the text reads "and God hardened their hearts" or similar. 

[josh93248]

@ Theme

By considered the possibility of other gods I mean truly non-religious god-like beings that would probably hate the label god being applied to them. I actually intend to write a book about some of the beings I dreamed up (fiction of course)

I have indeed experienced a confounding of reasoning but that is a normal human experience, not necessarily something profound.

You bring up an interesting topic with music theory, I'd actually like to hear your thoughts on that but perhaps on a different thread. I personally feel music theory can write a piece or can at least help a lot BUT most pieces and definitely the best pieces are based on more than that. What that is a is a lot of things but it certainly is more than theory, I'd agree with that!

@ Timothy

That's good we can agree on that much. It's interesting though, that you found evidence in the bible against free will... To be honest I'm not the biggest bible reader, I skimmed some of the early bits once and I got to some bit about "spilling his semen on the ground" and decided it was hardly divine... No offence.

Can I ask what your response is to those three earlier open questions of mine?

[themeandvariation]

@Josh: "I have indeed experienced a confounding of reasoning but that is a normal human experience, not necessarily something profound.

Well, you did say - 'not necessarily ' …  That does seem like a caveat  ..  We are only offered clues… the rest is our own projection, to make of it what we will.. 

[timothy42b]

@ Timothy
Can I ask what your response is to those three earlier open questions of mine?

Sure, I will share my thoughts, though I don't claim any access to truth.

FWIW, I am a liberal Christian, Episcopalian, which means many of my fellow Christians deny that I am one at all.  

1. Have you ever contemplated the nature of a world without god and with permanent death? If this were the reality and you knew it for a fact how would you change?

Sure.  While I believe there is a God, there's certainly room for the other opinion.  It would not change my behavior at all.  I like the music and people in my church, I'd hang around anyway.  And as far as moral behavior, same thing, I think I know what the right thing is.  

2. Have you ever considered the evidence that god, if he exists, is a tyrant?

Oh, there's no doubt at all the OT picture is a brutal tyrant.  I'm not a Bible literalist and this doesn't bother me.  I think it more likely He is not, but I guess it's impossible to be sure.  In one sense, insisting He is anything implies lack of faith.    

3. Have you ever considered that in a world without god people who understand that fact would have a better grasp on reality and would have a better chance of finding meaning in their lives and solving the problems of the real world?

With or without God, people's lives would be improved if we were better at critical thinking.  Science tends to encourage it while religion discourages it, but the existence of God doesn't seem that relevant to me.

[josh93248]

Some good answers Tim, I think we can get along 

One thing that I would pick up on is the idea of the value of good church communities, I have sort of been part of one, even as an atheist, when I sang in a church choir. I enjoyed it a lot and the community was reasonably left and non-dogmatic.

I see a role for something very much like church even in an atheist community. I like the idea of getting together regularly, with a theme of community, values and togetherness. That said I can do without a lot of the dumb ideas that can go along with the religious version. A shame atheism doesn't really form communities the same way, we're a bit like herding cats. Though I did hear of one philosopher, I forget his name, who started something like an atheist version of church, a sort of community of mutual support and values and repository of life experience. Interesting no?

[dcstudio]

I try not to blame the historical figure for the countless millions who have inflicted so much pain and suffering on the world trying to further their own causes.

His message, as I have come to understand it, was about freedom and tolerance--which are all but nonexistent in "church"--lol.

as a church musician in many different places I have enjoyed a unique vantage point --watching the show that people put on in church is hilarious... I mean it's hard to keep a straight face sometimes.  Knowing the married preacher is having an affair with the widow lady--the deacon was at the bar you were playing at the night before--trashed out of his mind, trying to pick up some girl..lol.

oh but all ready to look down on their congregation ---  seriously--I have seen this...it's shocking the first couple of times...   then you realize...  that's the way it is.   Some churches are much better then others...  I will admit.   There's always a trouble-maker though--always a disgruntled member you hear yelling in the office when you pick up your check Monday morning.


not at all Christian...lol..  but they all dress up on Sunday morning--come to choir practice--talk about how the holy spirit told them...whatever


I have had some rough church gigs....lol.

[josh93248]

Wll dcstudio, I'm not overly romantic about church, they can only be as good as the humans in them I suppose.

Wow, we've gotten a long way away from Pascal's Wager haven't we?

[timothy42b]

Wow, we've gotten a long way away from Pascal's Wager haven't we?

One of the problem's with Pascal's wager is the only benefit is an avoidance of punishment.  That shows a very fearful view of the world.

I would think it might be more convincing to talk about some positives instead. 

[josh93248]

Perhaps. But the way the topic is set up is a little combative. Whatever pencilart says... Hmmm... Perhaps I'll start a new thread...

[pencilart3]

I've missed a lot, I see, but I'll try and respond to a few questions. First of all, I should clarify that I am a strong christian and not because my parents are and I go to church every week. It is because I have done years and years of research, thought, consideration, etc...


Before we do that, there is has been quite a bit of talk about right and wrong "I know that that's not right, therefore I wouldn't do it whether or not there is a god". What do you base this right and wrong on? Is it on the current moral standards accepted by our culture? Because if so you have a very interesting set of morals. Or do you base it off of the bible? You must have some set of morals pre-established if you are talking about "right" and "wrong".

Let's start with these questions:

1. Have you ever contemplated the nature of a world without god and with permanent death? If this were the reality and you knew it for a fact how would you change?

I have. If there was permanent death, I would not change at all, because true happiness can only be found in God, as I have experienced. I'm not just saying this, I have legitimately found that there is true satisfaction in serving my neighbors, following the bible, etc... If there was no God, it would change my very person and everything I do would change. I would probably do the same things but not for God, IF I knew, somehow, that he didn't exist.

2. Have you ever considered the evidence that god, if he exists, is a tyrant?

I have searched and found no evidence. Please provide some if you would like.

3. Have you ever considered that in a world without god people who understand that fact would have a better grasp on reality and would have a better chance of finding meaning in their lives and solving the problems of the real world?

Yes, IF there was no God, I would be wrong, and have a "bad grasp on reality". But, as I am 100% sure that God is there watching this very thread, I have no doubt or fear.

BTW, the reason I was using what you called "pascal's wager" was because I knew that many of us were of different religions and beliefs and therefore you wouldn't want to hear me rant about the fossil record and age of the earth. I would love to discuss that, but I figured you wouldn't want to talk about it because we have our own religious bias. The reason I was using solely logic (as well as the "believing just in case") was because logic is our only unbiased, level playing field. I do not believe "just in case" nor do suggest that anyone else do that. I only stated the logic in it. But as I see that this has turned into a full blown religious debate I will put the only-logic, level playing field view aside and let's actually debate. I like that better but I figured you all wouldn't... my bad

[themeandvariation]

There is however no getting away from : The atrocities perpetrated under the banner of this institution is severe, and goes back centuries… One must, it seems to me, have to consider this 'uncomfortable fact' when assessing the 'truth' and its relation to that institution. 
And it baffles me how 'its' definition (its 'answers' ) somehow receives a disproportionate  amount of attention in these so-called debates..

[josh93248]

Welcome back Pencil Art! Like what I've done with the place

Right and wrong is such a complex topic, some people would even take issue with something as simplistic as "right and wrong" they may see a spectrum of answers or even many dimensions or may deny that morality or ethics exists at all.

The basis for my ethics (I think of morality as a word more associated with religion and unsuitable for me) is complex and philosophical. To boil it down I would describe myself as an altruist of sorts and feel that most people can reach their best potential with a combination of freedom (liberty) and support (society).

"True happiness can only be found in God" this is a somewhat arrogant notion is it not? I may argue that a religious god does not exist but I would never say that a religious person cannot experience "true happiness", or any person for that matter.

Good that you can admit that you have considered such things though.

As for tyranny, I made an earlier post and another commenter added to it, maybe look for those posts and then tell me what you think.

"I am 100% sure that God is there" Where does this certainty come from? Faith? Faith is a neat circle, it's claim is that it justifies itself. I say faith could be applied to anything or nothing and is equally meaningless. I could have absolute faith that nothing at all exists, that does not make it true and I see nothing noble in belief when we clearly live on different principles.

Interesting that you bring up belief in the end there. By what Logic should someone have faith?

[timothy42b]

I've missed a lot, I see, but I'll try and respond to a few questions. First of all, I should clarify that I am a strong christian and not because my parents are and I go to church every week. It is because I have done years and years of research, thought, consideration, etc...

You seem to be quite young.  Once before I participated in a similar discussion under the assumption we were all adults, only to receive a very angry response from a parent.

I respect your faith.  I wish you could understand that your version of Christianity is not the only one nor the sole owner of TRUTH.  

I am doubtful about your years of research, because starting out with Pascal's Wager indicates otherwise.  I strongly suspect that the reading you have done is very limited, probably to apologists like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel who only confirm what you already believe, in a particularly dishonest manner oftentimes.  To really research you need to look at quality writing that serves to disprove what you think.  Probably though you should wait a few years for this, it might be too threatening now.
  

Before we do that, there is has been quite a bit of talk about right and wrong "I know that that's not right, therefore I wouldn't do it whether or not there is a god". What do you base this right and wrong on? Is it on the current moral standards accepted by our culture? Because if so you have a very interesting set of morals. Or do you base it off of the bible? You must have some set of morals pre-established if you are talking about "right" and "wrong".

You don't base your morals on the Bible, you base them on the shared values of the religious culture you associate with.  The Bible serves to freeze and codify the cultural moral values present at the time it was written - a time when women were property, slavery and polygamy were good things, genocide was ordered by God, etc.  A careful reading of it in entirety does not support what we would think of as Family Values today, e.g.  

For example, I personally think torture is wrong under any and all circumstances.  Polls show the more conservative Christians are, the more they support torture.  (more liberal Christians such as myself tend to oppose it)  

[josh93248]

You raise good points Tim

I would like to see pencilart's reaction to Dawkin's God Delusion.

To clarify something about my position also, I have no real problem with religious moderates, I see us as mostly having a philosophical disagreement and that if you're a good person then that's enough for me. However serious fundamentalists are a serious problem, which I see you recognise.

Also your point about modern values is important. Using the literal text of the bible as some sort of moral base, (Now this is the bible taken as a whole, no cherry picking!) might lead to some quite nasty outcomes in my eyes and some people do actually swallow the whole damn thing!

[timothy42b]

You raise good points Tim

I would like to see pencilart's reaction to Dawkin's God Delusion.

Sam Harris and Dawkins are both forceful, even evangelical atheists.  I'm not sure I would start with them.

I might recommend Bart Ehrmann or Elaine Pagels as serious Bible scholars with a very different take than pencilart has ever been exposed to.  Or maybe even Spong, from my tradition, though he is a ways from mainstream.

I also suspect he's learned his science from AiG or ICR.  I think if you want to know what science says, go to scientists, and vice versa for religion.

Discussions with atheists and scientists have never troubled my faith.  Fundamentalists on the other hand have seriously eroded it at times.