meegannie
Blue Crack Addict
I'm agnostic, but most online "what religion are you?" peg me as "neo-pagan," so I think I'm just weird.
The Athiest thread
- Thread starter beli
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Before you read:
1. When I say 'objective', I mean, to the greatest of our ability. Nothing is 100% objective.
2. When i say that 'not all beliefs have the same argumentative value', I DON'T mean they don't all have the same real value to each individual.
3. The definitions of words like 'best', 'logic', 'faith', 'religion', 'rational' are mine and mine only. You may have equal and different ones.
4. 'Religion' to me, is the belief in supernatural forces, such as God or magic etc. It requires belief or faith (belief without evidence).
All thoughts can be reduced to a form of belief, but not all beliefs have the same argumentative value. As an example, if person 1 believes that snow is the consequence of natural processes and person 2 believes that snow is God's creation, the belief of person 1 has greater argumentative value because he/she can point to numerous objective studies on the subject. While still requiring a belief in the validity of arguments and science, these are called 'postions'. The belief that God created snow is an 'opinion' that rests on completely individual, subjective criteria. There is no objective validation of this.
I am an atheist because it is illogical to believe in something that cannot be cogently argued or has not been shown to be true. First, if atheism is "not believing", then it's not a religion. If anything, it's a argues for the position that the argument is the best form of rational communication and knowledge production. To say not believing is a belief is contradictory, especially when the decision to not believe is conscious and the deliberate result of critical thought. In this case, to not believe is a 'position', not an opinion or a belief. Opinions and beliefs don't require rational justification - however you define that - whereas positions do.
The debate about atheism and belief requires a dichotomy of atheist types. First, there are those who COME TO (not pre-conceived) their atheism through rational, critical thought. This means that they started out with agnostic nihilism and, only through critical thought, comes to their conclusions. They often argue that there is little/no value, and a considerable risk, in buiding upon that which cannot be rationally argued or demonstrated through consequence. Why? Because these considerations would be conceived on untested premises and the results of such thought cannot be reliable (tested for accuracy). It's a position that overlaps with agnosticism in that atheists who have a strong argumentative base will be necessarily forced to change their position upon the introduction of new arguments or evidence (even if it means rejecting atheism). Therefore, it remains anything but a concrete set of beliefs. It takes a stronger position on the value of the argument, but is open-minded because it requires that you do your best to begin each argument with a neutral position (blank slate) and add only knowledge which is demonstrably reliable and valid. It is simply more critical than agnosticism.
The second type of atheist is the type that rejects belief/religion/God in the same manner that believers would believe. They choose to or are told to, but don't consider the arguments and cannot justify their opinions. This is when atheism loses it's value as objective and critical and becomes nothing more than 'a set of beliefs.'
In conclusion, of course there is a lot of in-between here. poeple will be here there and everywhere. I'm just highlighting two of the places i believe are occupied by atheists. it will all be contigent on each individual. I did want to demonstrate that atheism in NOT just a set beliefs. If you've read this and still believe it is, that's ok. But remember, if you believe atheism is, then you must recognize that agnosticism is not free from the same criticism. Agnosticism is simply a belief that you can't know. In fact, I would argue that this concrete assertion makes agnosticism closer to a belief than atheism. Ok...feel free to respond.
Hope I don't offend anybody...
Jon
Last edited:
NotAnEasyThing
The Fly
Klink said:
No Jon, didn't offend me......just completely confused me. Maybe I'm just a simpleton, or maybe I just need to re-read what you wrote a few more times.
Can I just ask a question of those of you who are athiests.
In most of my conversations with athiests, it seems there has been a negative experience with christians/church etc. I am not saying that there has never been an intellegent well thought out and explored path that they have been on, just that it seems to me- often Atheism is a very emotive reactionary adopted position.
Please don't shoot me down in flames, I am not meaning to be disrespectful. Just want to ask if this is your experience too? Could it be that what you are rejecting is not so much God, as somebody's misrepresentative idea of God?
As I have read through the posts it seems that many of you have mentioned negative experiences with 'religion' in childhood. I have had my own too, but have been careful to sought out what was negative baggage and what the essential core of the various spiritual approahces to life.
To me, the universe is meaningless without a God
NotAnEasyThing
The Fly
Klink said:
Who says belief in God cannot be cogently argued or has not been shown to be true? Isn't that in itself a 'belief'? I certainly have seen it cogently argued and in my humble opinion, shown to be true.
(As you can see, I've been re-reading your post
)
Last edited:
OP
OP
beli
Blue Crack Addict
I thought Jon made a brilliant post and I hoped that would solve a lot of the misinformation in this thread. Obviously not. lol. No offense to you NotAnEasyThing.
Some atheists are exChristians. And some of those are very bitter and negative towards organised religion.
Some, like me, were raised atheists. I didnt know Christianity was still a living religion until I was 11 years old and moved to the city. Shocked was I, to put it mildly.
And Buddhists are often raised Buddhists as well. But they can also be people who come to it for various reasons.
Does that help? If not please ask again and I will try to explain another way.
*edited cause I spelt atheist wrong, again. LOL*
Some atheists are exChristians. And some of those are very bitter and negative towards organised religion.
Some, like me, were raised atheists. I didnt know Christianity was still a living religion until I was 11 years old and moved to the city. Shocked was I, to put it mildly.
And Buddhists are often raised Buddhists as well. But they can also be people who come to it for various reasons.
Does that help? If not please ask again and I will try to explain another way.
*edited cause I spelt atheist wrong, again. LOL*
Last edited:
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Basically bitter ex-Catholics don't make representative samples of how atheists think or feel.
NotAnEasyThing
The Fly
beli said:
Lol! No offense taken Beli! I think I get Jon's post now, just takes a minute or two to digest
That's really interesting what you said about your own experience. Wouldn't your position then, be similar to someone who was raised in a fundamentalist Christian family and just accepted what they were told to believe, and that's why they're a christian? Like, what critical exploration have you made of the the various primary texts of religions? - Sorry if this sounds somewhat like the spanish inquistion- or if I have missed many previous posts where you have pointed this kinda stuff out. Just is interesting to me.
NotAnEasyThing said:
This has been my experience too, especially with younger people. It was a reaction to Christians, or a church, or people and their ways. It has always bugged me that some people would hold it against God when it was just the fault of a bunch of zealots getting on their nerves. I'm not saying this is you guys, only that I have seen a lot of it and this has been my experience with non believers.
To me I cannot live with the idea that we don't go on after we die, even our pets, there has to be something else. I cannot believe it was all for nothing.
Last edited:
OP
OP
beli
Blue Crack Addict
Adolescence! LOL. I dont know that that counts. Thats hormonal thinking. As an adolscent my little sister attended a church, a Catholic church no less, solely to piss my atheist parents off.
But, I agree with you Kitten. If people are pissed off with organised religion then that should be the focus of their anger. Religion and gods are not necessarily tied together. I know a number of people who believe in the Christian God but wouldnt set foot in a church. (for whatever reason)
But, I agree with you Kitten. If people are pissed off with organised religion then that should be the focus of their anger. Religion and gods are not necessarily tied together. I know a number of people who believe in the Christian God but wouldnt set foot in a church. (for whatever reason)
OP
OP
beli
Blue Crack Addict
NotAnEasyThing said:
Valid question. Actually its two questions. One about gods and one about religion
I have thought about gods. In my darkest hour I have even wished I could believe in a god - it would make life so much easier. But I find it difficult to believe that theres an all poweful being. Why would there be? Just me, I cant fathom that one.
I also cant believe that this sucky planet we call Earth is designed this way. Why would anyone design AIDs, famine, etc?
As for religion I was sent to a Church of England high school (long story). I asked many many questions and wasnt happy with the answers I was given. Thens theres the whole wars, violence and persecution committed by religious peoples. I cant understand why people cant live and let live.
But thats just me.
I have questioned it. I have worked with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Seiks. I currently sit next to a Witch and a Mason. I have previously shared an office with a Coptic priest. And my husbands uncle is a Catholic priest. All of these people have copped questions from me.
Im not sure that that answers your questions though. Does it?
OP
OP
beli
Blue Crack Addict
U2Kitten said:
I know more people like that then I do actual Christians. A lot of the ones I know call themselves Spiritualists.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
U2Kitten said:
This is all sincere. Do you think there is a certain amount of concern over this, from some of the larger churches? From my outsider perspective, I find it very troubling. Religion has so many enemies as we all see every day when we read news reports about clashes and resultant violence and the like, yet when it then also becomes it's own enemy, it looks so grim.
Perhaps I'm too idealistic, but I know that if a defined religion was so important to me as it is to so many, it would absolutely burn me up to know that people were being turned away.
Isn't it time to focus on why they are disassociating themselves?
dandy
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
my parents attempted to raise me in the baptist faith. they weren't hardcore church goers or anything, but they do believe. i was sceptical from the beginning, somehow it just didn't make sense to me. i had a lot of questions, but i learned really quickly that my inquiring mind was not particularly welcomed by most of the adults i knew.
university was where i first had the chance to truly explore questions about the meaning of life. as a student of history, i found that the vast majority of the world's wars have been based on a clash of religions. maybe my beef is less with religion itself and more with people who use it as a weapon, as a tool of judgment, as a reason to discriminate and humiliate.
i can't wrap my mind around how each religion claims to be the only true and correct one--they can't all be right, and i don't believe just one could be either. what happens to all the people who faithfully follow the *wrong* paths? do they rot in hell despite their best intentions? should they be punished simply because they were misinformed? so many questions, so few satisfying answers.
one of my good friends in high school wrote this quote in the yearbook: 'atheism would demand more blind faith than i could ever muster.' this thought has stuck with me all these years, and i realized that i simply don't have any blind faith, therefore i am atheist.
university was where i first had the chance to truly explore questions about the meaning of life. as a student of history, i found that the vast majority of the world's wars have been based on a clash of religions. maybe my beef is less with religion itself and more with people who use it as a weapon, as a tool of judgment, as a reason to discriminate and humiliate.
i can't wrap my mind around how each religion claims to be the only true and correct one--they can't all be right, and i don't believe just one could be either. what happens to all the people who faithfully follow the *wrong* paths? do they rot in hell despite their best intentions? should they be punished simply because they were misinformed? so many questions, so few satisfying answers.
one of my good friends in high school wrote this quote in the yearbook: 'atheism would demand more blind faith than i could ever muster.' this thought has stuck with me all these years, and i realized that i simply don't have any blind faith, therefore i am atheist.
OP
OP
beli
Blue Crack Addict
excellent post. I really must learn how to express my thoughts in ways that people who are unfamilar with me will understand. Im really crap at that.
NotAnEasyThing said:
NotAnEasyThing,
Nobody is to be shot down in flames for their beliefs. I understand what you're saying and you cartainly raise points that are worth discussing.
The truth is I used to go to a protestant church in Montreal when I was younger. No, I can't say I have any negative personal experience with it. I still go to a united church, but I go for my girlfriend because it's important to her. I love her and that's far more important than any argument or belief is to me (explaining my initial rapport with U2 lyrics there). I have nothing personal against religion at all. I became an atheist - and I stress the word 'became' to highlight that it was a discovery for me, in a sense- over a long period of time. It wasn't a revelation as much as a long argument with myself. I had to weigh many arguments and positions (my church, read Lee Strobel and co.) and in the end I couldn't justify believing. That's largely because I don't see any evidence of it and have found the arguments (that I've read/heard) to date lacking cogency, either by arguing with pre-conceived notions or by committing simple reasoning fallacies. That probably answers your question about my analysis of religious arguments. That said, I'm always open to listening. Any time somebody brings up a new argument, I'm all ears.
I see your point about meaninglessness. It makes you wonder why we're here at all. I think most people who have thought about the ultimate purpose life are right in there with you...confused as anything. I am and I have no answers. I never did. Here is my take on what you saidabout meaning, though. This is not an attack (please don't take offense), just how I would evaluate it if it were my belief. Personally, I'm not satisfied by believing in something for lack of a more cogent explanation. If I do that, I subject my position to the criticism that it "begs the question". Begging the question occurs when I claim that because you can't prove a proposition to be false, that I am justified in believing it to be true. This is a problem because it doesn't force me to justify my assertions, but only relies on the weakness of yours. Even in the face of mild opposition, you still have to argue your point. Just because your counter argument is weak, doesn't necessarily mean that my original one is strong.
The other criticism that I would subject myself to is called the "false dilemma", which happens when I narrow a myriad of possibilities down to only a couple alternatives. Say I tell you that God must exist because the universe is meaningless without him. In this case, I'm assuming that the meaning of the universe is contigent upon God. I've forgotten that there may be thousands of other "reasons" behind the existence of the universe, even ones we don't yet know.
That is how I would evaluate this argument if it were mine. It's not wrong. It just lacks the qualities that make up what I would argue to to be a cogent position. You are, of course, free to argue your for your own.
If I want to add only reliable knowledge to my slate, then it has to be well justified to me. If for no other reason that's to allow room for me to accept an answer should one emerge eventually. I wouldn't want to deny a new position because of a belief. That may reveal to you that I find the best religious arguments (that I've read) to be shaky and therefore cannot add religion or belief to my slate. Reason for this, again, is that things shaky assertions are not necessarily wrong (and may even turn out to be true), but until they are shown to be true, then there is no value to me in accepting them. There's simply a risk that I could be wrong and produce knowledge for myself and others that is not reliable. I think harm can and has come from such knowledge. There are many current examples, but I don't want to stir up a bees nest here.
And you know what, NotAnEasyThing, you and everybody have the right to believe in whatever makes you happy or if the arguments lead you to a different conclusion. These are entirely possible and even likely outcomes. Ultimately, the things I've said can be reduced to what I think and how I think. But for my thoughts to have the greatest communicative value to others, I need to justify them. I make no generalizable truth claims....only my own arguments and arguments for arguments. The point I was trying to get across before was that I don't think positions arrived at through cogent arguing are just "sets of beliefs." I think they're a little more than that, while still certainly not truths. There may be many methods of knowledge production, but you have to make an argument for why you choose one. That's what I was trying to do. Still a long way to go for me, as you can see.
Like I said, please discuss further. I always find people's beliefs interesting.
JOn
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
A couple of very good posts, Jon. I like this thread!
Unfortunately, my brain has turned to mush tonight, so I really don't have anything to say.
I'm still waiting for cookies.... That's probably why I can't think....
Unfortunately, my brain has turned to mush tonight, so I really don't have anything to say.
I'm still waiting for cookies....
That's probably why I can't think.... NotAnEasyThing
The Fly
Klink said:
Personally, I'm not satisfied by believing in something for lack of a more cogent explanation. If I do that, I subject my position to the criticism that it "begs the question". Begging the question occurs when I claim that because you can't prove a proposition to be false, that I am justified in believing it to be true. This is a problem because it doesn't force me to justify my assertions, but only relies on the weakness of yours. Even in the face of mild opposition, you still have to argue your point. Just because your counter argument is weak, doesn't necessarily mean that my original one is strong.
The other criticism that I would subject myself to is called the "false dilemma", which happens when I narrow a myriad of possibilities down to only a couple alternatives. Say I tell you that God must exist because the universe is meaningless without him. In this case, I'm assuming that the meaning of the universe is contigent upon God. I've forgotten that there may be thousands of other "reasons" behind the existence of the universe, even ones we don't yet know.
The point I was trying to get across before was that I don't think positions arrived at through cogent arguing are just "sets of beliefs." I think they're a little more than that, while still certainly not truths. There may be many methods of knowledge production, but you have to make an argument for why you choose one. That's what I was trying to do. Still a long way to go for me, as you can see.
Like I said, please discuss further. I always find people's beliefs interesting.
JOn
Thank you so much for your well reasoned and respectful response Jon! I appreciate what you're saying about not simply settling for an insuficient and intellectually unsatisfying answer simply because a better (more cogent) arguement is unavailable. I can also agree with the problems with the "false dilemma" kind of arguement. Actually i find people who argue this way intellectually lazy.
But the question of "is there a God" seems to me, not to fall into this category. Either there is....or there isn't. And like any good scientist, isn't the best mode of operation working with the known facts and coming up with the best theory...even if it is still a theory. If you operate like you have said Jon, how would you do anything in life? What I mean is (for an example):
Will I bother getting out of bed today?
a) I could find my house as I remember it last night and it is safe to go and get breaky
or
b) The Cat may have grown into a giant fire breathing beast and eaten all the food in the house
or
c) The whole house may cave in on me if I even move
or d), e), f).....etc.
I know this is completely ridiculous but you get my point I hope. If we only ever make a choice to accept something as truth when all possible avenues have been explored we are rendered useless. To use my analogy before, I choose to get out of bed and make breakfast because based on my experience thus far, it seems very likely that my cat will still be sleeping harmlessly on the lounge and the house will probably have the strength to cope with a few footsteps down the hallway (not to mention I'm hungry!
). That is the best theory (dare I say truth).On the other side of the ledger, wouldn't it make more logical sense to test a good theory and judge it's validity based on that experience. In the case of the existence of God, I find it strange that people have trouble seeing evidence all over the shop. I guess it depends on how you approach the subject. For me, even the fact that we have the ability to critically debate, ponder, and process these arguements is itself an arguement for an intellegent creator. Don't you find the mind/conciousness a beautifully creative thing? And what about beauty/music/art/pleasure? Where do these fit in to a world that is devoid of God? Did we just evolve on our own to enjoy these creative (none essential facilties)? To me that is illogical.
But these questions were raise by Beli which seem to be common questions that atheists raise concerning God that they feel have no good answers:
The issue of suffering/evil in the world is often raised. To me this is not evidence against God, but evidence for God. Sound crazy?
Let me explain: Why would we view something that is part of our universe as evil or even have a problem with it if we are just some cosmic mishmash or accident. The whole thing would just be a chaotic pressure cooker. Suffering would not be suffering ... just the way it is. Of course this would also mean all human rights issues or for that matter any ethics have no basis. But I reckon as humans we can't accept that- we have an awareness that there IS something wrong. Thus our concept of suffering/evil. Of all the major religions, in my opinion all but one deal with this issue of evil unsatisfyingly and illogically. Most either minimise it (eg. Bhudism- which just says we keep coming back until we achieve Nirvana- and so there is no accountability just Karma) or they proclaim that we have to improve ourselves until we attain a more enlightened self (read perfect). My experience tells me that both of these options are inconsistent.
Christianity speaks of a creator who has given his creation free will. The ability to choose to accept or reject Him. Free will comes with a dilemma for an all powerful deity - if it is to be a truely free will then it means limiting his power. So if he was to intervene and stop the results of people's choice against him, they no longer have a choice. Result: stuffed up world. God's answer- according to Christianity- God in his grace takes the extrodinary step of satisfying the demands of his own just character. To me that is both logical and gives a satisfying explaination to the problem of evil (not to mention a satisfying answer to my own yearning for justice for the evil people have inflicted on other people).
In as far as your search for cogent arguements that prove/disprove (at least as much as that is possbile) the existence of God, I think here again, christianity is able to be put to a very reliable test. At the core of christian belief is the figure of Jesus Christ- God incarnate. Did he exist, are his claims true? It all hangs on him really. If he did not exist or is not who he claimed to be then the whole thing falls over. If he did exist and if his claims can be proven then you are left with the opposite result.
I don't want to give you all the arguements I have explored in this regard (this post is already way too long
) but just to say what have you found to be without credible basis? You mentioned Lee Strobel...in what ways does his logic not convince you? In answer to my 2 questions about Jesus, I don't think any reputable historian will question Jesus' existence. In fact many non-believers will claim him as a prophet or great moral teacher. But as C.S. Lewis has said so well, you only really have 3 options with Jesus: Liar, Lunatic or Lord. If he's a liar or lunatic then he can't be a great moral teacher. I know this is fairly simplistic but I have gone so much further than all this and looked carefully at the historicity and authenticity of the Bible. To me, one of the greatest proofs of Jesus validity is the early church. Why would so many people suffer and die for a faith they knew to be one big lie (as they would have had to being so close to the events - easy to prove/disprove then).Thanks for reading through to the end. I guess when I boil it all down, I am still left with the choice that I have, with all available information, test the "theory". Well I have, and all I can say is I have found something real.
Last edited:
OP
OP
beli
Blue Crack Addict
Can you explain this bit again please? Im having problems with this bit. Where you have all the "hes" could you replace them either with "God" or "Man". I think might help me. Possibly.
Last edited:
AussieU2fanman
Refugee
ahhhhh, this is my type of thread.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Result: Self Satisfied individuals who know the "truth" and that everybody else is wrong but that is the way that it is. I swear to your God that this is why.
NotAnEasyThing
The Fly
beli said:
Sure Beli, sorry if it was a bit confusing. What I was trying to do was sum up a fairly complex concept that is at the heart of what Christianity claims and as such it is reducing it down to a few sentences- never good when trying to explain something so crucial.
To put it another way- God didn't want to create robots- ie. people who just do what he says because He made us that way. He has made us free agents, and freedom comes with consequences as we can see. If God is just, he can't just ignore that, injustice (evil) must be paid for. The Christian claim is that God himself chose to take the penality for our evil- that is the point of Jesus death according to the Bible.
Hope that is more clear, but I guess my point has been that as an intellegent Atheist integrity and logic dictates that one should search out the claims of Christianity and other good cases for God that are out there. Otherwise you are bound to come to a false conclusion. So look at these things for yourself, see if my summary does it justice!
OP
OP
beli
Blue Crack Addict
Still not following. Injustice must be paid for, yes.
How does this work for AIDs victims, famine victims etc? Are you saying they are being punished for something they have done?
How does this work for AIDs victims, famine victims etc? Are you saying they are being punished for something they have done?
NotAnEasyThing
The Fly
A_Wanderer said:
Sorry A_Wanderer if you thought I was being smug or a 'self-satisfied' pompus bastard. That is certainly not my attitude. But if there is an ultimate truth to be found then someone must be 'right' and someone must be 'wrong'. However the christian position is not one for smug self serving elitists. In actual fact Jesus taught very clearly that if we want to be great we should be the servants of all. Humility was one of the defining characteristics of Jesus and something he calls for from his followers. Christianity is also all about the admission of our own short comings- how can we accept forgiveness without acknowledging our own inadequacy.
So I'm sorry if I have in anyway seemed pious or a know-it-all. Just wanting to have an intelligent conversation. Perhaps you've had a lot of "Christian" self satisfied individuals who know the "truth" treat you with disrespect- if so, please don't write off the whole Christian position because a few misguided individuals.
Cheers
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
However what if we do not need to accept forgiveness, what if we strive to improve ourselves and aid others out of our own humanity, not in order to appease what is in my opinion a fiction.
Now prior post was poorly worded and I hold no ill will towards most who follow religion and most certainly no animosity towards you - really
Now prior post was poorly worded and I hold no ill will towards most who follow religion and most certainly no animosity towards you - really
Last edited:
NotAnEasyThing
The Fly
beli said:
Hell no!
Now I see what you're asking. Man I think my brains running low on caffine or something at the moment. Jesus was very quick to speak against this view that the Jews in his time had about God, namely that people's disease/disability is a direct result/payback for their sin. His disciples once asked him if a man born blind was blind becuase of his parents or his sin. He quickly put that one to bed.No what I was meaning is that the whole created order has been affected by our sin. Sometimes directly (ie. when one person abuses another) and sometimes indirectly (as in when someone in the developed world use our resources unfairly and someone in the developed world misses out). The Bible teaches that in some way this has cosmic implications as well. I don't completely understand this but it makes logical sense to me. Humanity's evil collectively and cumulatively impacts on the universe. I guess a way of thinking about this is the fact that all of creation is connected, and just like when you throw a pebble into water- there is a ripple effect.
Does that answer your question?
Last edited:
OP
OP
beli
Blue Crack Addict
Karma - on a global scale?
Im not really liking this. I dont see why people in Eritrea should starve to death cause people in New York want two tv sets per household. (for example)
Why shouldnt the people of New York suffer for what they have done? Not that I want anyone to suffer but if anyone is going to it should be the people who caused the problem.
Im not really liking this. I dont see why people in Eritrea should starve to death cause people in New York want two tv sets per household. (for example)
Why shouldnt the people of New York suffer for what they have done? Not that I want anyone to suffer but if anyone is going to it should be the people who caused the problem.
NotAnEasyThing
The Fly
A_Wanderer said:However what if we do not need to accept forgiveness, what if we strive to improve ourselves and aid others out of our own humanity, not in order to appease what is in my opinion a fiction.
Now prior post was poorly worded and I hold no ill will towards most who follow religion and most certainly no animosity towards you - really
Thanks A_Wanderer!
In response to your statement about striving to improve ourselves and aid others out of our own humanity- I commend you on this. I reckon that's really cool that that's what you're doing. I guess I have just discovered in my own life that if I am honest with myself I'm not really capable of doing that with consistancy. I'm aware that this is something I need God's intervention with, ultimately I could never be 'good' enough on my own- like how good is good enough?
If you feel no need for forgiveness then I have to admire you for your integrity.
NotAnEasyThing
The Fly
beli said:
Good point Beli! I agree with you, in fact that is the sense of justice that I feel (and believe is god-given). But this is not Karma. Karma = you get what you give.
But what the chistian view of sin means is that we have responsibility in what we do because ultimately it has consquences both for us and in the world. After all, we all know how our wrong choices have hurt others. This is a much more reasonable view of the world imho because it put's the responsibilty on us to seek to work to counter the effects of these choices. I am called to make loving choices that would (using your example) help people in Eritrea who are starving.
That is why I find a Bhudist position on sin/suffering so wrong. If you believe in Karma you can look at a little baby starving in Eritrea and just go "oh well, she must have been bad in a former life".
Last edited:
intedomine
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Athiesm is beautiful!
I've been a proud one since the day I was born.
What I have always wondered however is whether everyone is born an athiest, and only a few remain that way. Are many people converted from a state of Athiesm, to a belief in a type of god through their social relations.
Contentious issue really, and quite depressing in a sense that rather than young people (children) being allowed to develop their own independent ideas on whether there is a "god", they are somewhat "brainwashed" by "manipulative" parents who already have a strong belief in a god.
Whilst my use of the word "brainwashed" and my idea that "innocent psychologically vulnerable children are maniplated by theist parents" might seem harsh, its just an alternative way of looking at the issue of everyone being born an athiest.
It's late, i'm not fit for in depth philosophical discussion
I've been a proud one since the day I was born.
What I have always wondered however is whether everyone is born an athiest, and only a few remain that way. Are many people converted from a state of Athiesm, to a belief in a type of god through their social relations.
Contentious issue really, and quite depressing in a sense that rather than young people (children) being allowed to develop their own independent ideas on whether there is a "god", they are somewhat "brainwashed" by "manipulative" parents who already have a strong belief in a god.
Whilst my use of the word "brainwashed" and my idea that "innocent psychologically vulnerable children are maniplated by theist parents" might seem harsh, its just an alternative way of looking at the issue of everyone being born an athiest.
It's late, i'm not fit for in depth philosophical discussion
Similar threads
