there is no God - love is enough

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

deep

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
28,598
Location
A far distance down.
I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond Atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The Atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

Penn Jillette
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557
 
This is essentially an assertion of 'strong' atheism, as distinguished from 'weak' atheism which is simply a state of absence of belief in all known God or gods. It seems to be close to the position held by the late sci-fic/comedy writer Douglas Adams.
 
I can respect this guy a lot, and I can even agree with many of the points he makes. To say living a moral life requires religion or spirituality of any sort isn't fair. Only thing is, I'm scared of dying as I suspect most people are, even if they won't admit it.
 
I have no problem with a robust profession of atheist humanism, but this isn't one. Ironically, it defines the author's outlook solely by comparing it to what it's not, in a dismissive and childishly self-congratulatory manner.

I am grateful for and in awe of the world as it is, and I do not "beg the invisible for more."

Where forgiveness is concerned, while I believe God has the last word on judgment of men's souls, I also believe, as do all religious Jews, that forgiveness of specific wrongs must come from the people wronged by them. That's what Yom Kippur is all about.

As far as being "solipsistic"--my very career, as well as much of my social life, is indeed based on learning from ideas from different cultures, not reflexively chunking them into some "interesting but based on a different worldview, thus wrong" pile. (Incidentally, in my experience, religious folk of whatever stripe have no monopoly on this failing.) And, on the rare occasions when non-negotiable religious beliefs come into play in a discussion, I simply state them as such, and don't pretend to be submitting them for negotiation by debate.

The utter drivel about belief in God=indifference towards others' suffering doesn't even deserve a response, as far as I'm concerned.

Hitler, Pol Pot and plenty of other iconic villains we're all familiar with weren't religious. If being religious means that I=Pat Robertson or al-Zarqawi and am somehow responsible for their vision of theism, then do I get to hold this author responsible for the former?
 
"Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have."

There's plenty of room for believing in God and still believing in all those things. I don't know why he seems to imply that one precludes the other. Some people feel the need to scientifically prove things in order to believe in them, some people don't. Either way isn't right or wrong, in my humble opinion.
 
yolland said:
The utter drivel about belief in God=indifference towards others' suffering doesn't even deserve a response, as far as I'm concerned.?

Where did he say that?
 
yolland said:
Ironically, it defines the author's outlook solely by comparing it to what it's not, in a dismissive and childishly self-congratulatory manner.

Given that the majority of the world's population cleave to various theistic belief systems, it appears reasonable for the atheist minority to start by defining what they are not.
 
"Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have."

Penn Jillette



A simple bowl of strawberries and cream convinces me there is a God.

I have never thought that God lashes out the pain/suffering in this world.

We seem to be doing a good job without God's help.



I love that Rebel from Nazareth :)
 
financeguy said:


Given that the majority of the world's population cleave to various theistic belief systems, it appears reasonable for the atheist minority to start by defining what they are not.


I wish I was defined by various non beliefs.:wink:


More seriously though I'm actually disappointed that everyone (sweeping generalization) despite their various "beliefs" still feel the need to comfortably set themselves into the confines of a metaphorical box.

Should we not leave that to the ignorant masses?
 
Originally posted by financeguy
Where did he say that?
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
Since he explicitly posits a cause-and-effect relationship here between atheism and the perception of suffering as something we "may be able to help others with in the future," and directly equates atheism with "the possibility of less suffering," I infer that he's suggesting religious people do not see suffering as something we can help others to avoid, or work towards reducing in the future.

If he does not see this understanding of suffering as being unique to atheists, then why phrase it this way? I would never say, "Belief in God means we may be able to help people who are suffering in the future"; that's ridiculous--anyone can and should believe in the value of striving to reduce future suffering, whether they are religious or not.
Given that the majority of the world's population cleave to various theistic belief systems, it appears reasonable for the atheist minority to start by defining what they are not.
Yes certainly, as far as it goes, an explicit disavowal of belief in God would be fundamental. What I was criticizing was the lazy reliance on disidentification with theism as a source of ethical values in and of itself. Think of Russell, Hume, Kant, Kai Nielsen or any number of others--they built their ethical systems on a full-fledged elucidation of rationalism as a basis for ethical thought, not on invidious comparisons of their own morals to those of theists.

I must say I find your collapsing of all the world's religions into a single "majority" vis-a-vis atheists a bit strange. As a social marker, perhaps, this may be valid. But as a Jew who also happens to be a product of Western culture, I find Russell, Nielsen et al. to be far closer to my own worldview, particularly ethically, than I do (for example) the major thinkers and texts of Hinduism, the non-Western belief system with which I am most familiar.

:wink: But I can just imagine Penn Jillette reading all this and muttering "Yeesh pal, I'm a fucking magician, not a philosophy professor..."
 
Last edited:
I like it when he catches the bullet in his teeth.

penniphile.jpg


Other than the lounge act, I have no use for him.
 
i think what he's getting at is less the existence of a god and more what people do in response to their belief in the existence of a god.

i understand why those of faith would have disagreements with this essay, he pretty much picks a fight. but he clearly feels as if he holds a minority viewpoint, and needs to be provocative in order to have his voice heard and his opinion register.

i suppose i don't think that people of faith are totally aware of how oppressive constant talk of 'god bless america' and 'god' this and 'god' that in every day language (and especially political language) can be if you are an atheist. as a passionate agnostic, i notice these things and actually find them a little bit offensive ... well, not offensive, just unnecessary (i mean really, hasn't God blessed the United States enough? we're very lucky people ... why can't our president ask God to bless the Pakistanis affected by the earthquake instead, maybe just once?).

so that's where i think he's coming from. i respect everyone's right to take issue with him, and Yolland (as per usual) did so eloquently, and he's perhaps not the best spokesman for his stripe of atheism. but i respect atheism, and i always find it interesting to watch the nervouseness and teeth gnashing that passionate atheism provokes in some of the devout.
 
He is taking a humanist POV. Generally speaking,( everyone here loves that) people of faith view life as the segway to eternal life. By spending so much time trying to please our deities, people don't see the problems in the world as being something we have to correct. If they get "saved", then they will be ok in the next life. Like Mother Theresa, some criticized her for recruiting for the Catholic church more that actually helping people get out of poverty. Or linking aid to abstinence or other religious principles. Jillette is just suggesting that if all these thoughts were eliminated and people realized that we get one life, nothing else, we should do everything we can to help others regardless. No one is coming to save us from the troubles of the world and we aren't going to a heaven or hell, or be reincarnated.

It is a hard concept to explain and harder to explain without offending theists. People who aren't athiests aren't bad people, they just have a different viewpoint.
 
Irvine511 said:
...but i respect atheism, and i always find it interesting to watch the nervouseness and teeth gnashing that passionate atheism provokes in some of the devout.
Originally posted by trevster2k
If they get "saved", then they will be ok in the next life...
It is a hard concept to explain and harder to explain without offending theists.
Well, I'm certainly not offended, but thus far at least (and perhaps some subsequent poster will prove me wrong), I think the two of you may be pre-emptively firing at phantoms here. I'm the only poster in this thread who's expressed strenuous criticism of Jillette's piece, but I understand quite well what humanism is, and I don't need to be "provoked" into recognizing that compassionate and intelligent "strong atheists" abound, much less that heartless and stupid theists exist. I actually think Jillette does the worldview he lays claim to a disservice by bypassing an opportunity to explain how rationalism and faith in the possibilities of human nature provide sufficient grounds for an ethos of caring and compassion. Instead, he settles for patting himself on the back for not being a "solipsistic" hypocrite begging the invisible for more. Pretty thin and uninspiring stuff, in my view. The humanist philosophers I've named and many others, on the other hand, I have great regard for, and proudly claim as contributors to my own (religion-based) ethical worldview.

Also, while Jillette himself, to be fair, doesn't get into the topic of obsession with personal salvation at the expense of all else, I think it's very important to note that that is not a textbook feature of religion "generally." Even within denominations that do place great emphasis on personal salvation, this is no intrinsic obstacle to adressing the earthly sufferings of others: just look at Bono and all the evangelical conservatives he's inspired to push for "real-world" steps to end extreme poverty, for instance.
Originally posted by Irvine511
i suppose i don't think that people of faith are totally aware of how oppressive constant talk of 'god bless america' and 'god' this and 'god' that in every day language (and especially political language) can be if you are an atheist.
Fair enough, though having grown up in an environment with more than a little latent anti-Semitism, I am more aware of the multiple perceived meanings "God talk" can convey than you might think. I think the perceived oppressiveness of such language comes more from its associations with experiences of exclusion, stigmatization and (con)damnation, than from anything inherent in the personal beliefs being expressed. For example, having been told (as I certainly have) that you'll burn in hell forever because you don't believe in or practice "X"; or (more subtly) things like the equation of "Godlessness" with Soviet totalitarianism that most Americans over 25 were exposed to to varying degrees; or even gradeschool history narratives portraying the Pilgrim "founders" as seeking nothing more than freedom of worship, a gross oversimplification. And the converse is also true: rationally or not, many religious Americans perceive a profession of atheism as the defiant slapping back of an outstretched hand.

When casual comments get under your skin on such a visceral level, it's important to take a good hard look at what exactly bothers you about it, what negative associations it holds for you and why, and how reasonable it is to ascribe those to the present speaker. And needless to say--when speaking, we likewise have a responsibility to take the situation of the listeners into account, and be prepared to make reasonable adaptations to the message.


P.S. Thanks for the compliment. :wink:
 
Last edited:
yolland said:


Well, I'm certainly not offended, but thus far at least (and perhaps some subsequent poster will prove me wrong), I think the two of you may be pre-emptively firing at phantoms here. I'm the only poster in this thread who's expressed strenuous criticism of Jillette's piece, but I understand quite well what humanism is, and I don't need to be "provoked" into recognizing that compassionate and intelligent "strong atheists" abound, much less that heartless and stupid theists exist.


not you, Yolland, but if we were to listen to, say, William Donahue of the Catholic League making strawmen out of "secular humanists" as a threat to American democaracy, ideals, way of life, etc., then we'd get a good example of someone who is driven nuts by the idea that people can function happily without any sort of belief in a divine presence. i can fully accept the idea that there isn't a God. i'm fine with that, and in fact i find it tremendously empowering -- while i don't think those who think deeply about their religous beliefs (like you, and NBC) feel shackled by their religions, i have heard more than once, "it's not that i hate gay people, it's that my religion tells me that it's sinful to be gay so therefore i'd like to pass you these pamphlets on Exodus Ministries and i'll pray for your soul." my boyfriend's parents sincerely believe he is going to hell, and they worry about it constantly (they being fire-and-brimstone Baptists) and are truly upset about the idea that they won't be reuninted with him in heaven and that he'll be burning in that Lake of Fire i've heard about from the people who can't think of anything better to do on a Saturday morning in June than to protest Gay Pride parades.

so this is an example, i think, of what Jillette is talking about where the destruction of a belief in this kind of God can minimize suffering -- specifically, the psychological suffering of a gay son, (who, truth be told, can deal with it), but also, more importantly, the psychological suffering of the parents who love him dearly and lose sleep over the though of their adorable, loving, kind-hearted son burning for eternity.



When casual comments get under your skin on such a visceral level, it's important to take a good hard look at what exactly bothers you about it, what negative associations it holds for you and why, and how reasonable it is to ascribe those to the present speaker. And needless to say--when speaking, we likewise have a responsibility to take the situation of the listeners into account, and be prepared to make reasonable adaptations to the message.

fair enough.

:up:



P.S. Thanks for the compliment. :wink:

well, you've certainly earned it, especially after your posts of support in the simltaneously disasterous and depressing "Is Boy a Gay Album" thread in EYKIW.

ugh. you know, i don't think i've ever been more disappointed by a thread in my whole time here.
 
Irvine511 said:
my boyfriend's parents sincerely believe he is going to hell, and they worry about it constantly (they being fire-and-brimstone Baptists) and are truly upset about the idea that they won't be reuninted with him in heaven and that he'll be burning in that Lake of Fire i've heard about from the people who can't think of anything better to do on a Saturday morning in June than to protest Gay Pride parades.

so this is an example, i think, of what Jillette is talking about where the destruction of a belief in this kind of God can minimize suffering -- specifically, the psychological suffering of a gay son, (who, truth be told, can deal with it), but also, more importantly, the psychological suffering of the parents who love him dearly and lose sleep over the though of their adorable, loving, kind-hearted son burning for eternity.
I hadn't heard about this situation--I'm so sorry this is happening to someone you care deeply for. I hope your own family doesn't have any such issues, not that that's any of my business.

I can hardly claim to understand what this situation feels like, but I've seen it happen firsthand to some gay Orthodox friends, and there are few things more heart-wrenching and enraging I can think of watching happen to a family. In fact, the grappling with my own views on Jewish law that were specifically occasioned by witnessing this played a big role in my decision, many years ago, to leave Orthodoxy for Conservative Judaism. Which is, sadly, hardly a gay-friendly world either, but has at least committed itself to starting down the path towards reconsidering the letter of the law in light of its spirit by welcoming openly gay Jews in its synagogues (as members and cantors, not yet as rabbis). I am confident that this too will inevitably come to pass, and in the meantime there are Othodox rabbis, such as my own younger brother, who are gently but firmly pushing for change within that community as well.

I can only admire that you are generous enough to recognize the anguish your boyfriend's own parents are subjecting themselves to by pitting the will against the heart in such a tragic fashion.
ugh. you know, i don't think i've ever been more disappointed by a thread in my whole time here.
Yes, that was thoroughly ugly on many levels. It is so sad how that kind of defensiveness can lead good people to do and say profoundly hurtful things in what they wrongly believe to be a defense of constructive dialogue.
 
I was listening to NPR when he did that little number the other morning. I agree that he has a right to his opinion. Mainly because the first thing that popped in to my head is...well, I do believe. Yes, I personally believe there is a God. Just like I believe in love, faith, trust, honor, integrity, family, friends and strength gained in times of adversity. Now, I have a science education...and I know that sometimes it is hard to 'prove' that something exists. Lets test something about what he said.
I believe in family and love.
to have a solid relationship you need a couple of things

love and trust

Now the relationship falls apart if you dont have them, right?...but, are they so easy to prove? Can you hold on to them? Can you truly see them? If one could prove 'trust' "love" as a solid substantial object wouldn't it be a lot easier to resolve conflict in a failed relationship? What if you loose one? What if your loved one crosses that boundary and hurts you? On purpose. You know it was on purpose and you know they will probably do it again, right? Maybe you even profess to love them enough to let them do it again? You no longer have trust for them and you don't have a resolution for your conflict...Now lets say it was easier to prove than there being a higher power like God.
"Honey, I know you dont trust me anymore because I lost it, but, I was looking under the sofa and look...look at what I found..."
::hands outstretched holding what object?::(dustbunnies? cheezits? pretzels? change? You know it isn't going to be trust...besides, it is clean under my sofa.)
Once it is lost is it so easily found?
Faith and beliefs are values we have... to some they are traditions..some even devote their lives to making sure that others that weren't shown religion have a chance to listen and believe...I applaud them though it is not my life fulfilling prophesy to do the same...just to give it some thought....finding God isn't like finding a lost set of mittens...God doesn't come hand knitted in your favorite color..soft and warm...wrapped lovingly through your coatsleeves by your mother tied together with a string so you don't loose him.
Or does he?
...just my opinion.
 
While I am a Christian, I thought this essay was one of the most TRUTHFUL and INSPIRING essays that I've ever heard.

Why?

Because it strips away all the excuses that christians use to "sin" (mistreat others) and doesn't offer them absolution of their "sins" by calling in that thing called grace and then believing that God has forgiven them just so that they can go back and "sin" all over again!

This essay says that we ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS and CAN'T USE GOD AS AN EXCUSE FOR OUR UNEXCUSABLE BEHAVIORS.:ohmy:

It makes us directly responsible for our thoughts and actions in the world - and that is how it should be.

It is probably one of the most God-affirming essays that I have ever seen.

Here is another interesting article. I think it somehow fits into this discussion:

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/life/stories/11/26interfaith.html



God can do many things, but he won't fix it all himself
Saturday, November 26, 2005

During one of his all-too-common, self-inflicted predicaments, Homer Simpson falls to his knees, looks heavenward, and cries out, "I'm not a religious man, but if you are really there, help me, Superman!"

I sometimes view God as a superhero. The one who will swoop down and save me from my own stupidity or someone else's cruelty or nature's onslaught. Maybe you do, too.


And why not? After all, the Bible is filled with stories of God saving his people from invading armies and nature's furies. Why not a little help in the big game, that grant proposal, the call from the medical clinic we are too scared to return?

For those of us who might be informed by the Jesus story, we try to resist the temptation to see God in this way or to call on God to act this way toward us. When Jesus asked God to take away the pain and suffering of the cross and God did not, perhaps that was God's way of saying that our theology might have to change.

God is not at my beck and call. God didn't bail out Jesus, so it's somewhat unreasonable to expect God to treat me any differently.

Of course, that doesn't stop me from asking. (I said it was a temptation to get God to do what I want. It's usually a very strong temptation.)

And here's the neat trick: If I can convince myself that God will help me out in any situation, I can blunder into any situation with the assurance that SuperGod is on the way. Mess up the environment? God will take care of it. Play fast and loose with facts and truth? God will make it all better.

But God isn't like that. God won't be misused, or abused, by human beings on the make.

Yes, God can make any situation better. There isn't any crucifixion so terrible that doesn't have a resurrection to match it. But the crucifixions do come, life's troubles do overwhelm and there is pain and hurt. (Sometimes even caused by people who think God is on their side.)

After a presentation, a university student once said to me, "I just want you to know: I don't believe in God." I replied, "Tell me more about this God you don't believe in. Maybe I don't believe in that kind of God either."

The Rev. Terrence Sherry is pastor at First Presbyterian Church, participants in Austin Area Interreligious Ministries. Learn more about them at aaimaustin.org.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this discussion. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom